Rob Singer -- Discuss

Quote: AlanMendelson

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

A Brief background, regarding this from another forum.

Rob contacted me and wanted to tell me something I might find of Interest. I had no clue what he wanted to tell me at the time, I just knew it was about some play. I agreed I would listen, remain neutral and report on that on VCT. Remaining neutral wasn't so easy since me and Rob have not had the best of relationships on the forums. As most everyone knows... he has been fairly anti Advantage Player, and for the most part a gas-lighting troll and sometimes a complete a******.

When I talked to Rob he was fairly humble, level headed and personable. His story was fluent and he was able to answer questions without tripping up. He did seem sincere. He did know one aspect about the machine play that wasn't widely known(from what I read that aspect wasn't talked about in any of the articles published online, but it also wasn't super top-secret). Prior to my conversation with Rob on the phone, I certainly wouldn't have believed anything that came out of his fingers online, I especially wouldn't have believed he played this. I would have put it at a less than a zero chance.

After listening to what he had to say, I was no longer dead certain he was completely full of s*** regarding this, and there was a chance he did in fact play the double up bug(a few things kind of added up). There was/is a lot of things that still didn't make any sense. Rob could have easily got this information after the fact and came up with a good story. From my understanding, Rob has even owned his own machines.

When I relayed this information to the Forum people automatically assumed I was vouching for Rob and I was totally convinced he made Millions playing this double up bug. I never claimed any such thing, and I'm certainly not convinced.

Since then, he talked to Mickey Crimm and from my understanding Mickey IS convinced Rob did in fact make this play. I have no clue what Rob said to Mickey that has convinced him Rob is telling the truth. There was one aspect about these machines that most people didn't know, but Rob Rob did. At the time, many of us thought that information was super top secret, but as it turns out, it was actually known by quite a few people, it just wasn't written about online.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan,
You know goddamn well this is not going to lead to proof of anything, either way.

There would have to be a pretty good investigation done to come up with proof either way.
Even then, I don't think there's any way we could ever prove 100% Rob didn't make this play, unless there is proof he was in prison or something.
But there could be ways Rob could prove he did play it, or at least it's way more likely than not.

From my understanding Rob claims to have even hid it from his family. Rob's has already had an answer to every logical question including things that didn't make any sense(I'm not saying they were good answers' I'm just saying the has answers). I'll name a few. (not exact quotes just the general gist), Never mind naming a few, here's the long and short of it. "Rob do you have any hard proof such as tax records or W2G's?" NO, I don't save that type of stuff after X amount of years. I could go on and on, but I won't.

There could be a situation where Rob says he did X Y or Z and those those claims are proven untrue. Add that to some other evidence and a picture could be painted to any sane person that Rob was not telling the truth.

My "dog" in this fight is simply this. For about ten years Rob Singer told me he won about a million dollars profit playing his system. Then, months after the Wired article about Kane and Nestor, Rob insists on having an important private meeting. At that meeting he confessed to me that he misled me about what he won using his system and then claims he discovered the double up bug.

Rob never presented any proof to me about winnings from his system and when I asked him for proof about the double up bug he said he didn't have it either.

For many years I was torn apart on forums for reporting about and even defending Rob Singer. But after he confessed to me that he intentionally misled me as part of his cover story because he said he feared the double up bug use was criminal, I'm going to come clean and tell everyone what I know.

I have no proof that he ever won a dime. I have no proof that he discovered the double up bug and profited by $2.8-million. I have no proof, period.

As I said before you make up your own minds. And as I said before I made a big mistake. I should have demanded proof before I stuck my neck out.

I've heard all of Rob's explanations. There are many explanations but there is no proof.

Now that I've gone public about this Rob Singer has launched personal attacks against me and my family and he even posted online that I should commit suicide and I should kill others when I do. I have screen shots of his post. He also suggested another critic should commit suicide and he made those comments several times.

To the Wizard: I urge caution. To everyone else, decide for yourself.

Quote: AlanMendelson

For many years I was torn apart on forums for reporting about and even defending Rob Singer. And as I said before I made a big mistake.

AND RIGHTFULLY SO. Let's forget about the double up bug for a moment.
There's zero chance his "Martingale" video poker system ever worked and ever will work, as it was being touted. I don't want to hear all this b******* about alternative ways to enjoy gambling blah blah blah. I don't care how it was worded, the simple fact is... it was all leading people to believe there was a way to beat video poker in the long run and make money at it using his system. There was/is a motive behind all that.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I should have demanded proof before I stuck my neck out.
And as I said before I made a big mistake. I should have demanded proof before I stuck my neck out.

Rob mentioned something about how you were using him and his system to help promote an add content to your website(long before Rob even mentioned that, I believe I brought that aspect up quite some time ago). I myself have already had to Wonder if that was your motivation NOT to demand proof and the reason you were willing to stick your neck out. Because, it's beyond me how anyone with any sort of gambling knowledge, especially someone who's been around for a long time, someone who has access to, and knowledge about forums such as this one could possibly believe his system and special plays had any merit whatsoever. I know you already kind of explained that, but I have to tell you, I'm not buying it. Perhaps you wanted to believe so much that there's other alternative ways other than actual Advantage Play methods to beat casinos that you were willing to go down that type of path and stick with it. Now here comes Rob.... he just happens to be a great fit for that narrative.

You'd need a fake ID to be skipping out on tax forms. I hear rich people do that all the time.

New York leads the way on cracking down on fake IDs | WHAM https://13wham.com/news/local/new-york-leads-the-way-on-cracking-down-on-fake-ids

AxelWolf I think I made this clear. I let my guard down because of his newspaper column and his books and his website. I trusted his information by letting my guard down.

I didn't make any money from Rob Singer. And I can prove it by showing my long term records from Google Adsense showing the clicks and revenue for each and every page he appears on.

Yes, I HAVE THOSE TEN YEARS OF RECORDS.

My motivation was to get a good story, yes. The story turned out to be how the reporter failed.

Quote: ChumpChange

You'd need a fake ID to be skipping out on tax forms. I hear rich people do that all the time.

He didn't skip out on tax forms. He simply says he destroyed everything and can't show anything.

He also says the time for getting copies from the IRS has expired.

He has an explanation for every point or question you raise.

Machines be not random, and not all of the million dollars he won came from spotting patterns. Machines be cold as ice too.
Alan Mendelson & Rob Singer - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DF2GuWa72A

I always notice that machines try to figure out my play and may give me easy wins at the start to sort that out. But once they grow tired of me they go deathly cold for a long, long time. So a strategy of winning a 4 of a kind for the day at a higher denomination for a daily win goal seems appropriate to me. I could raise my denomination every 1000 hands for the day until I hit something big.
***********************************************
Q: I’ve been dealt many three- and four-card royal flushes lately. What are the odds of this happening?

Playing Jacks or Better, you’ll experience the thrill of being dealt a four-card royal flush once in every 2,777 hands (roughly once every four hours on average). Once in every 92 hands, on average, you’ll be dealt a three-card royal flush (about 7-8 per hour). This is what makes video poker exciting; namely, that you’ll have several opportunities to draw for a royal flush even if the odds are somewhat long (see next question).

Q: When you hold three cards to the royal flush, what is the chance of getting the two cards that you need on the draw for a royal flush?

You have a one in 1,081 chance of getting the two cards you need for the royal flush. The following table shows the chance of hitting the royal flush on the draw when you hold x cards to the royal flush.
https://www.casinocenter.com/video-poker-about-that-royal-flush/

Q: How come every time I need one card for a royal flush, it never shows up, but that exact card that I needed always seems to show up on the very next hand?

That’s because you have “selective memory.” The computer program in the video poker machine that randomly selects the cards for each hand doesn’t use the information from previous hands to determine which cards it will deal. Every hand is a random deal regardless of what cards appeared (or didn’t appear) on the previous hand.

Quote: AlanMendelson

My motivation was to get a good story, yes.

What made you think some variation of VP martingale that's varying from optimal strategy was a good story?

You may not have made money directly from anything he was selling however it added content and traffic to your site.

For the same reasons, I think, that radio shows, TV shows, and book publishers fell all over Uri Geller, whose big claim to fame was "bending spoons with his mind." LOL. Anything quirky and not normal gets the ink.

Not being an aficionado of video poker, I don't know when the Nestor/Kane article appeared. So how long after the article saw publication do "Singer" contact Alan?

Quote: AxelWolf

What made you think some variation of VP martingale that's varying from optimal strategy was a good story?

You may not have made money directly from anything he was selling however it added content and traffic to your site.

If you look at my videos and if you look at the articles on my website there is NOTHING about the alleged Martingale system.

My videos were mostly a record of Singer's "special plays" which mostly involved maximizing your chance of drawing quads, and there was a long interview about subjects such as quitting when ahead and are the machines truly random.

All the discussion about Martingale happened on forums AFTER my interviews and videos appeared.

Frankly I never interviewed Singer about that aspect of his play. What interested me were his beliefs about machines not being random and what his special plays were.

I know you're trying to make me look bad even today but ease up, buddy. My mistakes were not about endorsing his play. My mistakes were about accepting his claims of big profits.

Check my website. Read my articles. Don't just watch the videos. In my articles -- and they are dated -- I made it clear I didn't endorse his system. And as I said a hundred times on forums I never played his system and to this day I still don't know how he increases and decreases his bets.

So if you're still trying to attack me, quit it.

Quote: redietz

For the same reasons, I think, that radio shows, TV shows, and book publishers fell all over Uri Geller, whose big claim to fame was "bending spoons with his mind." LOL. Anything quirky and not normal gets the ink.

Not being an aficionado of video poker, I don't know when the Nestor/Kane article appeared. So how long after the article saw publication do "Singer" contact Alan?

Singer had his meeting with me in May of 2019 which was about five years AFTER the publication of the article in Wired.

You'll find articles from Singer and me appropriately dated on my website to show this timeline.

Quote: AlanMendelson

If you look at my videos and if you look at the articles on my website there is NOTHING about the alleged Martingale system.

My videos were mostly a record of Singer's "special plays" which mostly involved maximizing your chance of drawing quads, and there was a long interview about subjects such as quitting when ahead and are the machines truly random.

All the discussion about Martingale happened on forums AFTER my interviews and videos appeared.

Frankly I never interviewed Singer about that aspect of his play. What interested me were his beliefs about machines not being random and what his special plays were.

I know you're trying to make me look bad even today but ease up, buddy. My mistakes were not about endorsing his play. My mistakes were about accepting his claims of big profits.

Check my website. Read my articles. Don't just watch the videos. In my articles -- and they are dated -- I made it clear I didn't endorse his system. And as I said a hundred times on forums I never played his system and to this day I still don't know how he increases and decreases his bets.

So if you're still trying to attack me, quit it.

I'm not trying to attack you, sorry it's coming off that way.

Just trying to understand how/why someone can get caught up in believing nonsense strategies when they are so obviously flawed. It should be a cautionary tell for others.

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm not trying to attack you, sorry it's coming off that way.

Just trying to understand how/why someone can get caught up in believing nonsense strategies when they are so obviously flawed. It should be a cautionary tell for others.

If you ever read my website you would have seen and read that I was never caught up in his strategies. What I did was interview him and document what his special plays were, and I interviewed him about his beliefs that video poker machines weren't necessarily random.

AND FOR THAT I WAS ATTACKED.

Never did I endorse his strategies and I did not use his methods when I played.

BUT I WAS STILL ATTACKED.

My error was taking his word for the amount of money he said he won and the time he won it.

GOT IT?

Read the articles on my website. They're all dated. Use the way back machine if you must.

"Singer's" strategies were irrational. But so was the idea of some idiot bending spoons with his mind, and it got him on every network after he fooled a bunch of physicists who were testing him.

The physicists refused to consult magicians or psychologists because they thought they were too smart to be fooled. Alan got caught not consulting professional video poker players because he thought he knew enough to evaluate "Singer." Non-specialists assuming they had the training or skill set to evaluate an irrational claim. Hubris.

Quote: redietz

"Singer's" strategies were irrational. But so was the idea of some idiot bending spoons with his mind, and it got him on every network after he fooled a bunch of physicists who were testing him.

The physicists refused to consult magicians or psychologists because they thought they were too smart to be fooled. Alan got caught not consulting professional video poker players because he thought he knew enough to evaluate "Singer." Non-specialists assuming they had the training or skill set to evaluate an irrational claim. Hubris.

Here you go again. I didn't need mathematicians when I asked Singer to explain why he dropped the kicker when holding AAA in triple double bonus.

In an earlier post I said that Micky seemed convinced Rob Singer played at the double up bug. It seems as if he took issue with my wording so I want to set the record straight. It's always important to try to get the correct information out there.

Here's is his take on the situation.

Yes, please change my position on WoV from "convinced" to "highly likely." And if you want to you can add my opinion is based on at least a few facts:

1. Rob's overall knowledge of the play, something that no one else on the internet has come close to matching.

2. The fact he knew the published sequence of events to get the machine to double up was wrong, and he published what he called the correct sequence of events. And after that fact KJ confirmed with the author of the Kane & Nestor story that the sequence was intentionally altered. No one has credibly disputed Rob's published sequence.

3. That Rob publicly "retired" from professional video poker play in 2009 a few months after Kane & Nestor got busted. Rob didn't quit playing video poker. What he did was quit filing schedule C on his income tax. He still played some over the years but basically made himself scarce in the casinos which is exactly what I would have done if I were waiting out the statute of limitations. Also, Rob never brought up the fact that he retired in 2009. It's because I've been following him so long that I remembered that about him and brought it up here. I'm the one that put it out there that Rob retired shortly after Kane & Nestor got busted. I thought, and still do, that it was more than coincidence.

4. Rob put this story out there knowing full well that if anyone else taught him the play then his story could easily be publicly shot down. I would not lie about something like this if I was fearful that someone could come forward and easily shoot my story down. It would be a tremendously stupid move and very embarrassing if caught. I think it has been over a year now and no one has come forward. I even put out a reward of $1000 for any good information anyone could provide that someone else knew the play before Rob.

I think it is highly likely Rob put the play down. But I am not 100% convinced . Only Rob knows 100% whether he did or not.

I'm going to shoot down the (4) above pretty quickly here. Here we go:

1) The "origin story" of how "Singer" allegedly discovered the glitch, which can be found through the Best Buys site, lacks any detail, any evidence, and is complete unconvincing. I suggest you have a couple of people who are expert at evaluating written criminal statements read it. Any police detectives with experience should be fine.

2) If "Singer" has been so reticent to come forward with the fact that he used the play, why would the person who taught him the play be any less reticent? Presumably "Singer" had reasons to not come forward. Those would probably apply even more so to the person or people who taught him the play, as they would be even more responsible.

3) If "Singer" did execute the play for employers/partners, but did not discover it, I think we can all figure out how it went down. Not only is nobody going to come forward, you'd have to increase the 1K reward mickey offered by about 500 times to even have a chance of getting a peep out of anybody.

All things considered, I'm not sure why mickey included (4) above. It doesn't make any sense on the face of it.

Now, if you consider the possibility that "Singer" executed the glitch while under the employ of someone else, it covers his knowledge of it, the timing of everything, why his family would be kept in the dark (because he WAS NOT ALLOWED to share info), and why there was no real evidence for all the money he won, because he would have passed off most of the winnings to his employers.

You know, when you think about it, "Singer" did try to make some public wagers in that time period regarding an amount he could put in escrow as evidence of his winnings. He tried to generate wagers regarding how much cash he had available in particular periods of time. And yet that money had no long-term trail, so to speak. Did he blow it as a degenerate, or was he just holding it until he passed it along?

Just speculating here, but if the Gaming Today column was a cover, and his "Rumblin', Stumblin'" books were a cover, then that suggests something about whoever gave him the Gaming Today column if you put two and two together.

If there is a logical flaw in what I wrote above, please point it out.

Isn't it against forum rules to extensively quote banned members here? If Mike wanted Crimms opinion on this, he knows where to find them.

Quote: billryan

Isn't it against forum rules to extensively quote banned members here? If Mike wanted Crimms opinion on this, he knows where to find them.

I felt I needed to correct my previous statement. This entire thread is talking about a banned member. Not sure why that's allowed, but this isn't. It's not like i'm relaying random things just because, or something that's causing a problem, its pertaining to the topic. let's use some common sense here. Why was the rule made in the first place? I assumed it was to avoid a situation where every single thing a nuked member posts on a different form ends up on this one. Obviously, not what I'm trying to do. Would you agree with that?

But whatever, I knew there was a chance that I get suspended and I am willing to take that risk for this. I think it would be a little hypocritical to even allow a thread like this in the first place and then start suspending numbers for discussing things that pertain to it. Sounds like entrapment.

Bill, I certainly appreciate the fact that you are the one that might have escalated my suspension. I was hoping it would come from someone I didn't like or someone who didn't like me.

Let's look at Crimm's #2:

"2. The fact he knew the published sequence of events to get the machine to double up was wrong, and he published what he called the correct sequence of events. And after that fact KJ confirmed with the author of the Kane & Nestor story that the sequence was intentionally altered. No one has credibly disputed Rob's published sequence."

AxelWolf please advise:

A. How do you know that Singer's sequence is correct? Where is the confirmation?

B. How do you know no one has credibly disputed Rob's published sequence?

C. If Rob's published sequence was wrong why would anyone with the correct sequence come forward? Would they come forward because Crimm offered a $1,000 prize to anyone with proof that Rob's sequence was wrong? If you had the correct sequence would you disclose it for Crimm's $1,000 prize?

Has anyone used Rob's now published sequence to make the double-up bug work?

Where's the logic?

Just one question: is Rob Singer the guy riffing on Bob Dancer, or is Bob Dancer the guy who is riffing on Rob Singer?

It’s all so confusing.

Quote: billryan

Isn't it against forum rules to extensively quote banned members here? If Mike wanted Crimms opinion on this, he knows where to find them.

You're not wrong, and yet it was made clear before this thread was started that Mike is looking into it, and willing to entertain the discussion.

So my stance is that a continuing exemption is being made for information directly pertinent to this conversation. MickeyCrimm information, RobSinger information, and perhaps others with direct knowledge (KJ got mentioned) are part of this.

I think accuracy and facts in THIS thread should be able to be reported without repercussions on the messengers. It's similar in that way to how we did accident investigation. You could only get to the chain of events and decisions made through non-punitive means.

As long as the Wizard chooses to investigate the situation, I for one will not be shutting off the flow of information from any and all sources.

I do consider this an exception to the general rule. And I do not encourage speculation or trashing of anyone in abusing the exception.

Thanks.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Let's look at Crimm's #2:

"2. The fact he knew the published sequence of events to get the machine to double up was wrong, and he published what he called the correct sequence of events. And after that fact KJ confirmed with the author of the Kane & Nestor story that the sequence was intentionally altered. No one has credibly disputed Rob's published sequence."

AxelWolf please advise:

A. How do you know that Singer's sequence is correct? Where is the confirmation?

B. How do you know no one has credibly disputed Rob's published sequence?

C. If Rob's published sequence was wrong why would anyone with the correct sequence come forward? Would they come forward because Crimm offered a $1,000 prize to anyone with proof that Rob's sequence was wrong? If you had the correct sequence would you disclose it for Crimm's $1,000 prize?

Has anyone used Rob's now published sequence to make the double-up bug work?

Where's the logic?

I can't say for sure, unless I sit down and actually try the sequence myself. I haven't had the opportunity to do that(not for lack of trying). However, there have been some people that I trust who seem to have knowledge about this particular machine. I believe what they're are telling me regarding the sequence. That lines up with what Rob was saying. I do believe very soon we will have confirmation on what the exact sequence is.

I believe someone on this very Forum mentioned that they had a machine with this double up bug feature on it. I believe I asked them privately if they would kindly send a video showing this. That didn't seem to lead anywhere.
It looked to me like they were more interested in trying to hit a Royal.

Was he trying to borrow money from you Alan? Was this why he revealed the "truth"?

Quote: Mosca

Just one question: is Rob Singer the guy riffing on Bob Dancer, or is Bob Dancer the guy who is riffing on Rob Singer?

It’s all so confusing.

LOL. Singer is riffing on Dancer.

Singer's name, allegedly, came from the fact he claims he lost a bundle playing AP style as recommended by Dancer.

I want to return to a curious question. "Singer's" column at Gaming Today -- GT also had AP video poker columns concurrent with the "Singer" column. I have to think the AP writers let the editor and publisher know what they thought of the "Singer" column. So it does beg the question why the GT publisher was using the "Singer" column. It's true "Singer" was not paid for the column, so maybe it was just a case of any free column is a good column. But maybe not.

One thing I do not understand. I'm being criticized elsewhere for suggesting that "Singer" may have been executing the double up bug for other people. I'm actually cutting him a break, as winning 2.8 million, as he claims, is pretty modest. I think Axelwolf commented on this somewhere. That total implies that he was tippy toeing around using it, with the possibility that it would end at any time. Seems like a non-optimal methodology, to be sure. And then the cash sort of disappeared into the mists.

My point is, if he was doing it for someone else, the constraints for use would have been placed on him by others, so he wasn't the one being non-optimal. And the money would have gone off into the mists because chunks of it were not his money. The cash would not have disappeared because he had degenerate streaks. The only negative thing I'm suggesting about him is that he didn't, as his story reads at Best Buys, spend hours trying weird stuff on video poker machines in hopes of finding some glitch. That was a really unconvincing tale of discovery, like doing a travelogue about the Florida Keys when you hadn't actually been there in the last 10 years.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Was he trying to borrow money from you Alan? Was this why he revealed the "truth"?

Where did this come from?

Let me answer this clearly: No. Rob Singer did not try to borrow money from me.

I think any and all "side allegations" are just ridiculous. If we only stick with facts we have enough to discuss. There's no reason to create unnecessary drama.

I think Singer revealed his story to me as the first step of his campaign to claim ownership of the double up bug... which happened years earlier.

The only ducks he didn't have lined up was the proof.

The person who claims to have discovered the double up bug now alleges that an employee of IGT, a publicly traded company, programmed the bug. If programmed, it would mean intentionally, correct?

His phrase: "these people loved to program in their 'signatures' "

I wonder what IGT would think about this allegation?

I have a long relationship with the media relations team at IGT so I asked for their comments.

With all the appearance of a high-roller, complete with entourage, Nestor was able to persuade a casino staffer to enable the double-up feature on an IGT Draw Poker machine in the Meadows’ “high limit” room. A supervisor immediately reversed the decision, and the staffer went through the procedure to turn off the feature again, but neglected to save the change.

It would prove a costly mistake. Nestor and his crew returned to that same machine 15 times over the next two months, collecting $429,945 from 61 payouts. (Adding insult to injury, the Meadows was later fined $48,900 for turning on the double-up feature without regulator approval.)

https://www.wired.com/2013/05/game-king/

Quote: AlanMendelson

The person who claims to have discovered the double up bug now alleges that an employee of IGT, a publicly traded company, programmed the bug. If programmed, it would mean intentionally, correct?

His phrase: "these people loved to program in their 'signatures' "

I wonder what IGT would think about this allegation?

I have a long relationship with the media relations team at IGT so I asked for their comments.

And ask them if they are aware of anyone else playing the bug and if there's anyway they could even tell after the fact.

Quote: AxelWolf

And ask them if they are aware of anyone else playing the bug and if there's anyway they could even tell after the fact.

This is part of what I meant when I implied "Singer" could have been just an employee, more or less. The question is, what is more likely? The bug is an accident that evaded any overview or the bug is not an accident?

Now here's a piece of important information that I had flat-out forgotten. It undercuts the entire idea that "Singer" executed the bug at all, much less that he discovered it. I want to mention that it was kewlJ at VCT who pointed this out to me, and it is a lynchpin question that would have to be asked in any interview.

At VCT, in a post years ago when Kane/Nestor first became public, "Singer" actually posted that he considered what they did to be breaking the law and they should be prosecuted. Now if "Singer" had indeed been executing the bug, what a strange thing to publicly post! At the time, remember, he was allegedly laying low waiting for the statute of limitations to expire. But he then goes on a public forum and chimes in that they were criminals. That's not very low key, and it's not very helpful to his own situation!

How to explain that? I have no blessed idea. Of course, back then, "Singer" had not decided that he had been a double-upper. Maybe he forgot he had posted that?

In any event, it is a real head-scratcher if you try to make a case for him having done it. I will pay good money to hear his explanation to Wizard.

Thanks again to kewlJ for pointing that out.

Quote: redietz

This is part of what I meant when I implied "Singer" could have been just an employee, more or less. The question is, what is more likely? The bug is an accident that evaded any overview or the bug is not an accident?

Now here's a piece of important information that I had flat-out forgotten. It undercuts the entire idea that "Singer" executed the bug at all, much less that he discovered it. I want to mention that it was kewlJ at VCT who pointed this out to me, and it is a lynchpin question that would have to be asked in any interview.

At VCT, in a post years ago when Kane/Nestor first became public, "Singer" actually posted that he considered what they did to be breaking the law and they should be prosecuted. Now if "Singer" had indeed been executing the bug, what a strange thing to publicly post! At the time, remember, he was allegedly laying low waiting for the statute of limitations to expire. But he then goes on a public forum and chimes in that they were criminals. That's not very low key, and it's not very helpful to his own situation!

How to explain that? I have no blessed idea. Of course, back then, "Singer" had not decided that he had been a double-upper. Maybe he forgot he had posted that?

In any event, it is a real head-scratcher if you try to make a case for him having done it. I will pay good money to hear his explanation to Wizard.

Thanks again to kewlJ for pointing that out.

Hell that's an easy explanation if I was Singer.

"Yeah, I wasn't sure it was legal and couldn't ask anyone so I figured since they got caught let them go to jail if it is. Then I will know for certain how much trouble I am facing without exposing myself.

And since they ruined the play with their stupidity it serves them right anyway"

Least that's what I would say

Quote: redietz

This is part of what I meant when I implied "Singer" could have been just an employee, more or less. The question is, what is more likely? The bug is an accident that evaded any overview or the bug is not an accident?

Now here's a piece of important information that I had flat-out forgotten. It undercuts the entire idea that "Singer" executed the bug at all, much less that he discovered it. I want to mention that it was kewlJ at VCT who pointed this out to me, and it is a lynchpin question that would have to be asked in any interview.

At VCT, in a post years ago when Kane/Nestor first became public, "Singer" actually posted that he considered what they did to be breaking the law and they should be prosecuted. Now if "Singer" had indeed been executing the bug, what a strange thing to publicly post! At the time, remember, he was allegedly laying low waiting for the statute of limitations to expire. But he then goes on a public forum and chimes in that they were criminals. That's not very low key, and it's not very helpful to his own situation!

How to explain that? I have no blessed idea. Of course, back then, "Singer" had not decided that he had been a double-upper. Maybe he forgot he had posted that?

In any event, it is a real head-scratcher if you try to make a case for him having done it. I will pay good money to hear his explanation to Wizard.

Thanks again to kewlJ for pointing that out.

There’s a high likelihood that Singer is aware of the posts here and elsewhere. I would suggest that if people have interesting Investigative journalist thoughts, that the PM them to the Wiz so he can use them during the interview without Singer having a chance to prepare.

There really is only one question: what proof is there that Rob Singer can take credit for discovering the double up bug?

The exact specifics of the bug have never been released and this loophole enables anyone to concoct their own story. Even the details released in Wired Magazine have been reported as misleading.

Frankly I can take credit for the bug by adding a detail not previously reported because no one can confirm that the previous media reports were correct. All I need to say is you need to feed a $2-bill into the machine to trigger the bug and there's no way you can say I'm wrong. The same thing for Singer or anyone else.

Again, since the exact specifics of the bug have never been released, this loophole enables anyone to concoct their own story.

Singer first laid claim to discovering the bug last May which was FIVE YEARS after the Wired Magazine article appeared. When asked for proof that he discovered it he said he had none.

He claimed he profited by $2.8-million using the bug. When asked for proof he said he had none -- not even tax records or W2Gs that would have averaged about $466,000 per year if you believed his story.

So... knowing what I know about the bug and following what Singer has said... I could claim that you need to insert a $2-bill and tap on the screen three times to trigger the bug... and I won $5.6-million doing it... and I didn't keep any tax records either from five years ago... so prove me wrong.

So the Wizard simply needs to ask... Rob what proof do you have you discovered it?

Everything else is old news.

Bottom line: if Singer has no proof the Wizard shouldn't give him the publicity or even the respectability that an interview implies.

Pretty sure there's a bug at the prison than can get a message on a license plate of a passing BMW in 30 minutes flat.

Quote: AlanMendelson

if Singer has no proof the Wizard shouldn't give him the publicity or even the respectability that an interview implies.

Are you suggesting a pre-interview of some sort, where the Wizard provides Singer with the questions in advance, requests that Singer answers them in advance, and then the Wiz decides whether or not to go through with the face-to-face interview based on Singer's pre-interview answers?

Or perhaps ambush Singer in the face-to-face interview with difficult questions, and then edit or shelve the interview if Singer doesn't answer satisfactorily or otherwise appropriately?

Quote: coachbelly

Are you suggesting a pre-interview of some sort, where the Wizard provides Singer with the questions in advance, requests that Singer answers them in advance, and then the Wiz decides whether or not to go through with the face-to-face interview based on Singer's pre-interview answers?

Or perhaps ambush Singer in the face-to-face interview with difficult questions, and then edit or shelve the interview if Singer doesn't answer satisfactorily or otherwise appropriately?

coach belly! I missed you. Thought you left with MDawg. Heartens me to see you still only write interrogatory sentences.

Rob has been asked and he's answered just about every question there is so far.
I suggest all of that be archived and given to the interviewer. Those questions should be all asked again. The interviewer should have some questions that haven't been asked. The first question should be if Rob stands by all of the answers he's given so far.

Quote: unJon

Thought you left with MDawg.

I brought MD over to a rougher neighborhood, so rough that the developer tints his windows, thinking that nobody can see him inside whenever he stops by.

As it turns out, nobody there cares as much about MD as they do over here.

Quote: AxelWolf

Rob has been asked and he's answered just about every question there is so far.
I suggest all of that be archived and given to the interviewer. Those questions should be all asked again. The interviewer should have some questions that haven't been asked. The first question should be if Rob stands by all of the answers he's given so far.

I can't even imagine a new, appropriate question. If Rob isn't going to say anything new why should the Wizard waste his time?

Quote: AlanMendelson

I can't even imagine a new, appropriate question. If Rob isn't going to say anything new why should the Wizard waste his time?

I'd bet there will be plenty of new info. All the guy seems to do is lie, there has to be new info.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I can't even imagine a new, appropriate question. If Rob isn't going to say anything new why should the Wizard waste his time?

You are preaching to the choir. I already stated this interview probably isn't going to get anywhere without a much deeper investigation, and I don't think that could happen anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mike will have something new to add to the mix, I even suggested a few things, I just don't think it'll be enough. Many of the things I suggested might not even be possible.

Is the interview still going to happen?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Is the interview still going to happen?

It would probably be best to private message Mike and ask him.

Here is the interview. Hope you enjoy it. I welcome all comments.



Direct: https://youtu.be/FtZAa6H53zo

Quote: Wizard

Here is the interview. Hope you enjoy it. I welcome all comments.

Direct: https://youtu.be/FtZAa6H53zo

So Rob is claiming that this double up bug glitch was on all those different version of machines? What year did the 'Don't Ask Me Again' version even come out? I don't remember ever even seeing that particular version before 2009.
The version where the double up always came up with the arrows pointing down was around in the 90 ',s from my Recollections those weren't even on multi denomination games at least not the touchscreen ones with multiple denominations.

I thought he said these machines came out in 2002- 2004?

And then there's the third version(the one I assumed it was on) where the double up is usually yellow on the bottom next to the other touch screen buttons.

Quote: AxelWolf

So Rob is claiming that this double up bug glitch was on all those different version of machines? ...

I was caught off guard by the different versions and didn't know enough to challenge him on the details of how it worked more deeply. However, I thought it was more complicated than he makes it out to be.

Quote: Wizard

I was caught off guard by the different versions and didn't know enough to challenge him on the details of how it worked more deeply. However, I thought it was more complicated than he makes it out to be.

It certainly does seem a little odd to me that the glitch would be in all those different versions of machines. But I know nothing about programming so perhaps they use some of the same code/ programming/ software or whatever you call it across multiple platforms. I can't remember all the different years at all the different versions came out I really had no reason to pay not much attention to what years. I have my own skewed timeline that would be off by years I'm sure.

I haven't even finished the video I had to rewind it and re-watch the first half.

P.S. Regarding you not having enough information about qhat machines it worked on and how it worked... is why I suggested more investigation be done before the interview(I noticed he talked about different versions of the machines on the other forum, that was one thing I felt would prove he didn't play it, if found out it was only available on one version of the machines. That information would/should be easy to get.

Everything will be tainted as far as a follow-up interview goes. However, if we find out it was only available on one version of those machines, it's case closed and we would have to come to the conclusion that he didn't play the double up bug.

If it turns out it was on all those versions of machines that would be more evidence in his favor. However, that doesn't mean he couldn't have gotten that information by doing some investigation himself.