Thread Rating:

Poll

1 vote (3.22%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (3.22%)
4 votes (12.9%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (3.22%)
No votes (0%)
20 votes (64.51%)
9 votes (29.03%)

31 members have voted

AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 146
  • Posts: 18219
May 4th, 2020 at 6:19:24 PM permalink
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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
redietz
redietz
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 459
May 5th, 2020 at 8:27:14 AM permalink
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.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 235
  • Posts: 7067
May 5th, 2020 at 8:56:59 AM permalink
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
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1814
May 5th, 2020 at 10:23:13 AM permalink
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.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
AlanMendelson
AlanMendelson
Joined: Oct 5, 2011
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 3537
May 5th, 2020 at 11:01:56 AM permalink
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.
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1201
May 5th, 2020 at 4:34:00 PM permalink
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.
coachbelly
coachbelly
Joined: Oct 21, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 298
May 5th, 2020 at 5:05:55 PM permalink
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?
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1814
May 5th, 2020 at 5:08:32 PM permalink
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.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 146
  • Posts: 18219
May 5th, 2020 at 5:15:24 PM permalink
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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
coachbelly
coachbelly
Joined: Oct 21, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 298
May 5th, 2020 at 5:26:20 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: