Blatant Gambling Scammer Christopher Mitchell (YouTube/Baccarat/Roulette/Sportsbetting)

[BedWetterBettor]

Maybe he got scared by the comeback of Card Shark, I know a certain Karen is!

[zealanddonk]

Whoever called "I bet he cant do 6 days in a row" for his 30 day challenge is 30 minutes away from being correct.

[RMS9]

Whoever called "I bet he cant do 6 days in a row" for his 30 day challenge is 30 minutes away from being correct.

Basically two days without a “Guaranteed Winning” LIVE (recorded) roulette video. Is it possible the bumbling queen went belly up with a 5 level Marty? Could we be so lucky?

[zealanddonk]

Whoever called "I bet he cant do 6 days in a row" for his 30 day challenge is 30 minutes away from being correct.

Basically two days without a “Guaranteed Winning” LIVE (recorded) roulette video. Is it possible the bumbling queen went belly up with a 5 level Marty? Could we be so lucky?

Speaking of:
I know he claims whatever the time is based on the computer clock.
Does the casino he is playing on also show the time/can it be obscured?

I'm surprised he just doesnt make a video, change his clocks, wait for dealer change, make a video, rinse repeat.
Crank out 7 videos in 1 day.

[RMS9]

Hey Chris. Going to Ohio to collect your allowance from papa Foster isn’t a “vacation” you boob. Fucking low breed, inbread midget.

[zealanddonk]

Today's video of interest if you want to see a semi-unhinged Chrissy ramble about, swear, break his own rules and provide excuses.

As RMS9 mentioned, Chrissy is off on holiday again soon.
Chrissy's new story is they take vacations every 2 weeks, which includes going to the Vegas Strip.
Must be a tight life that he leads.

[nick2199]

I always look at the ending change amount this video it is 38 cents....the video before it was 85 cents....the odd pennies is a give away that he made another deposit....I also found it odd that in the current video he made a point of saying look my starting amount is the same as my last video....he never said that in videos 1 thru 4

[Dan Druff]

What's up PFA family? Dan Druff here, from Ruin Scammers' Lives Vlog. This is going to be a very long series of posts. If you don't have a lot of time, come back later. But if you do have time, grab your "morning coffee", sit down, and have a read.

Folks, we've had a lot of fun out here clowning on Chrissy and his enablers for the past 17+ months, and he richly deserves every bit of it. I can also say that I'm proud that we are nearly the top Gpogle result for "Christopher Mitchell scammer", and potential victims can find more than ample evidence here of what he's really doing.

However, some critics have asked, "Why haven't you guys done more to put an end to Chrissy's scams? Why do you just sit in this thread and talk about him?"

There's a good reason for that. There is only limited action which can be taken involving someone like Chrissy, for various reasons:

1) He is small time. He engages in subsistence-level scamming. It is extremely hard to get anyone in law enforcement to care about him.

2) No regular poster here is a victim of his. That's a good thing, of course, but it makes it much tougher to take legal action against him, as none of us were personally victimized by him, aside from AHooiserA, who was victimized via frivolous court action. Simply being horrified as we watch him victimize others isn't enough, from a legal standpoint. We cannot sue him, and any reports to law enforcement will highly likely be dismissed, as we weren't victimized.

3) Law enforcement, in general, has a poor understanding of gambling. This is even true in Las Vegas. All of us know that Chrissy is scamming by selling bunk -EV strategies, and lying about his results to do it. However, there's a fine line between "criminal scammer" and "sore loser who didn't win after paying for gamlbing coaching", and law enforcement is often not very good at discerning where that line is. Even actual victims of Chrissy's will often be told to sue him in civil court, and the matter will be dropped.

How do I know that law enforcement has a poor understanding of gambling? Because I've been actively involved in calling out and investigating scams in poker and gambling for over 15 years, and I've been shocked at how many blatant cases of scamming and theft in the gambling world go unpunished and uninvestigated, even when reported by the victims.


Could a good criminal case be built against him, if somehow law enforcement would take an interest in him? Yes. But it's extremely tough to get them to take such an interest, especially given the number of scams taking place on the internet, many of which are much bigger in scope and much easier for law enforcement to understand.

While it may feel good to report Chrissy to various law enforcement bodies, it is highly unlikely to result in any action, if you're a third party who wasn't personally victimized by him. Even if you were victimized, the chances of getting a meaningful investigation started is fairly low. Federally, the FBI has much bigger fish to fry -- including bigger internet scams. Locally, Las Vegas police are quite busy with a lot of violent crime, drug rings, organized theft rings, and other major issues.


So does this mean we are powerless, and relegated to this thread, hoping people find it via Google?

No. There's another way, and it's completely legal. Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Problem Solving

Folks, I like to think of myself as a problem solver. There are many things I'm not good at, but I can at least hang my at on the fact that I have a talent for looking at situations logically, breaking them down, and figuring out the best solution.

When attempting to solve a problem, one must consider a few factors:

1) How much energy and resources is the problem worth? None of us have limitless time, energy, or resources, so we have to figure out how important it is for us to expend these resources to solve the problem.

2) Which solutions are most likely to be effective? When attempting to solve a problem, you need to figure out what will be effective, and not just knee-jerk to what you wish or hope would be effective.

3) Once you determine the right solution, how difficult is that solution to obtain? For example, if the solution costs $5,000,000, most of us will not (or could not) go that route, even if it's by far the most effective option.

4) Can you do it legally without opening yourself up to new problems?


Taking a look at the above 4 factors, you can see why it's not easy to get some kind of action taken against Chrissy's scams. Most of us would like to see Chrissy go to prison for what he's doing, but he's also not an important person in our lives. Not having personally been victimized him, there's only minimal time or money most of us would be willing to spend to make this happen, even if it's possible. Why? Because that time and money is better spent on other things, such as family, friends, recreation, or business/career opportunities. Few people have the desire or time to dedicate themselves to seeing Chrissy busted.

Furthermore, even if we did, the "obvious" route -- law enforcement -- is extremely difficult, as mentioned in the previous post. Therefore, even those who make it their life's mission to get Chrissy busted will likely fail, especially if they weren't personally victimized by him.


Folks, where am I going with this? Read on and you will understand...

[Dan Druff]

Chrissy's Achilles Heel

Folks, success is often a negotiation between what you can't do and what you can do.

If you approach life with, "I can do anything I set my mind to" or "Failure isn't an option", you will fail most of the time. While these trite and uplifting phrases seem motivational, in reality they mostly fuel delusion. For example, despite being a lifelong fan of baseball, I would never have had the ability to become a Major League Baseball player. If I had spent my early adult life trying, I would have been met with frustrating failures and repeated defeats.

The proper way to go about life is to see where you CAN be effective, and rely upon those strengths to give you the best results.

Folks, I realize this sounds like a Chrissy MLM/coaching speech, but stay with me. I'm not about to invite any of you to my Facebook inner circle for $1500.

The last two posts laid out why efforts to bring Chrissy to criminal justice are likely to end in failure. Indeed, we have seen zero evidence of an active criminal investigation against him. At most, reports were made, and ultimately action was decided not to be taken. While the justice system is often slow, clearly there would be an active criminal investigation by now if third party "reports" were working.

However, Chrissy's scam does have an achilles heel -- his YouTube channel. Without his YouTube channel, he cannot promote his scam very well. Sure, he can attempt to do it through Facebook, but he actually has developed somewhat of a YouTube following, and he has enough of a presence to where a new stream of potential victims consistently finds their way over there.

The obvious solution to this is to report his videos. But we've tried that, and this has mostly failed. The only strikes he's received have been for rookie mistakes such as posting BetOnline affiliate links in video descriptions -- something he'll unlikely be dumb enough to repeat.

Given that YouTube gives its users no other option to complain besides the mostly-useless "Report" option, what can be done?

Folks, up until a few weeks ago, the answer I would have given to this question was simply, "Wait for him to fuck up again, and report him like crazy."

However, I have learned a lot since then, and there is a better way.

Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Removing YouTube Videos is Hard

Folks, in situations like these, knowledge is power.

You need to separate what feels good or obvious from what actually works. That latter is what you need to strive for. Contrary to what your mom told you, you aren't special. If you try something the way many others before you have tried, and if the others before you failed, you will also fail. That's why it's so hilarious when Chrissy promotes Martingale betting systems, as if they're revolutionary. People were trying Martingale and going broke with it, long before Chrissy was even born.

The YouTube "report" button is OBVIOUS. And it feels damn good to click when a video pisses you off.

Clicking "report" often on videos you think are harmful is OBVIOUS. And it feels damn good to do that, as well. After all, the more reports, the better, right?

Getting your friends or followers to click "report" often is OBVIOUS. And it feels damn good to know that a lot of people will be doing exactly what you're doing, and you presume YouTube will take the video or channel down.

But will they? Usually not.

Take the case of Steven Crowder versus Carlos Maza in 2019. Crowder is an extremely popular right-wing Youtuber. Carlos Maza is a left-wing, openly gay content creator for left-wing giant Vox. In 2019, Maza openly raised issue with a number of gay slurs on Crowder's show against him. Maza, however, had his own history of controversial and provocative content on Vox. Despite Maza using his large platform to put intense pressure on YouTube to ban Crowder, and despite Maza finding actual violations Crowder had committed, he ultimately failed. Millions of people reported Crowder's videos, Maza himself made a huge stink which was very public, but Crowder's channel remains active today. He got a small win in that Crowder was demonetized, but Crowder had just two videos banned, and his channel remained intact and basically the same.

That's because YouTube, like Crowder himself, is a strange animal.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, is motivated primarily by one thing: Money.

Their decision-making process is not dictated by protecting people, bettering the world, or doing what's right. Even though YouTube is run by those on the political left, its dedication to the pursuit of the almighty dollar even supersedes its own politics. Almost all of their decisions are made from a practical standpoint regarding profit -- both present and future.

YouTube is a tricky platform to run. If they censor it too much, people will start to become upset, and will go elsewhere to find their content, destroying YouTube's near-monopoly on user-created video content. If they censor too little, they open themselves up to both legal liabilty and (more importantly) bad press and potential government regulation.

YouTube is looking for that "sweet spot" -- where they censor the least amount possible, while also projecting the air of responsibilty.



To understand YouTube, you need to first understand that not all channels are created equal. Since YouTube operates from a profit motive, they assign value to channels based upon popularity. The more popular the channel, the more difficult it is to take action against it. There are varioius reasons I will cite for this, which I'll get to later.

If you want to kill a large channel like Steven Crowder's -- with 5.5 milion subscribers and nearly a million views per new video -- good luck. Even Carlos Maza, with his huge platform and influence, was unable to accomplish that.

If you want to kill a medium-sized channel -- such as one with 100k (real) subscribers and 80,000 views per new video -- again, it's difficult. Someone like Carlos Maza could probably accomplish it if he made enough of a stink about it to the point where YouTube had to address it, but for the average person, it's again very difficult to remove such a channel.

But what about small channels? Chrissy supposedly has 24k subscribers, but it's likely most of those are fake, as are the 2500-4000 views we see he's getting per new video. In reality, he has a small channel, and you can see that from the amount of actual engagement with it. Small channels causing actual harm and breaking actual rules can be shut down, but it has to be done the right way, or otherwise it's nearly impossible.


But what do i mean by "the right way"? Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Reporting on the Report Button

When you click "Report" on YouTube, it asks for various pieces of information. It wants to know what kind of violation occurred in the video, whether the violation occurred in the description, and even asks for a timestamp in the video where the violation occurred.

When filling out this information, it's easy to picture a YouTube employee in a cubicle in San Bruno, CA, dutifully reading your report, jumping to the point in the video you flagged, and watching for themselves. Then you picture that, upon seeing the blatant violation you described, the video will be banned, and perhaps the channel itself will be terminated.

But then what happens? Nothing. The report is ignored, the video remains, and you ask yourself, "Are they watching what I watched? How could they have watched the video from that point and not understood how blatantly against their terms it was???"

Then you find 10 other videos from that person, and report similarly offensive and troublesome content. Again, crickets. Those reports are ignored, as well.

Then you get every friend possible to make the same report. Validation in numbers, right? Now they have to take action!

Again, no. The video remains, and no strikes are given.



So what's going on here, and why is the Report button even there?

You need to understand that the Report button is a necessary feature for YouTube to feign responsible administration of their platform. Clearly there has to be a way for people to report problematic or dangerous videos. However, given the immense size of YouTube's platform -- and the millions of reports that come in about "violating" content -- there simply is not nearly enough manpower for human beings to read each report and watch each reported section of each video.

However, recall that YouTube is a tech company. Their "Report" button is mostly handled and operated by algorithmic processing, with only a little human intervention. It is highly likely that all of your YouTube reports have never been read or watched by human eyes!

Given that it's algorithmic, and that there's usually no human involved in the decision-making process, it's important for YouTube to make their Report system tamper-proof. Remember our discussion about reporting in numbers, and how that doesn't seem to work as well as we'd expect? That's because YouTube is very aware that people will utilize social media in order to encourage mass-reporting of disliked content, and they have to be careful not to ban videos or channels simply because a lot of people are reporting them.

Say, for example, a right-winger starts a small YouTube channel, and does a video on why Donald Trump was a great President. Then, somehow the video makes it over to a large left-wing Facebook group, and they encourage people to report the video. This small channel would have a ton of dislikes and reports, simply because the creator expressed a controversial political viewpoint. Should that video be banned? Obviously not. Will YouTube ban it? No. They specifically designed their algorithm to resist mob-reporting tactics.

This is even more true when it comes to the same person reporting multiple YouTube videos on one channel. Multiple reports of a channel from the same user gets treated not just with diminshing returns -- but actually negative returns. If you report one video on John Smith's channel, YouTube's algorithm sees your report as more credible than if you report 10 videos. Why? Because if you report 10 videos on John Smith's channel, then the algorithm assumes you probably just have a grudge against John, and that John is less likely to actually be violating YouTube's rules. This, again, is why it's a mistake to hit Report on every one of Chrissy's videos.



Folks, let's review what we've learned so far about YouTube:

1) YouTube only cares about money, and is trying to censor the least amount of content possible, while maintaining an appearance of responsible behavior.

2) Small channels are easier to get removed than big/medium channels, but it's still very tough.

3) The Report button is handled algorithmically, and your reports are usually NOT viewed by a human being.

4) Getting multiple people to report a video will typically not much impact on the video's status.

5) Reporting multiple videos yourself on one channel actually causes all of your reports on that channel to mostly be dismissed by YouTube's reporting algorithm.



Is there more to learn? Of course. There's always more to learn. Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Ask the Experts

Folks, I'm not a young man. I've been on this earth for about 5 decades, and I have gained experience in many areas of life. However, I will admit that up until a few weeks ago, I didn't know all that much about YouTube. I understood some of the concepts discussed in the posts above, but I didn't know the full details, and I wasn't sure about a lot of things I thought I knew.

About a month ago, there came a need for me to learn more about YouTube. Unfortunately, my attempts at googling this information was met with failure. Indeed, all of the information you find online about reporting YouTube violations is essentially the same -- descriptions on how to report videos, submit forms, and understanding the strike system.

I could not find a single resource actually explaining the Report process being handled from YouTube's side. I could not understand why certain videos and channels could effectively be reported and action taken, while others such as Chrissy's remained up and nearly untouched.

Fortunately, I do an internet radio show with a fairly diverse group of listeners. However, these listeners tend to have something in common -- most are recreational poker players (not pros), most are male, and most are middle-aged or older. These people tend to be professionals in various fields, and it's amazing how quickly I get texts when I ask or talk about a specific field of expertise. When I discuss medical matters, doctors text me. When I discuss sales matters, salesmen text me. When I discuss legal matters, lawyers text me. When I discuss car matters, auto mechanics (or expert auto-fixing amateurs) text me. It's pretty cool, actually.

About a month ago, I was expressing frustration with YouTube to one of the lawyers who texts me. This is not a lawyer I've ever hired, or anyone who has ever been on the show, but rather just one who is a fan of PFA Radio and sometimes talks to me. He said that he knew little about YouTube, but has a friend (also a lawyer) who works in the Bay Area, and whose main specialty is handling cases involving Big Social Media. He said that the guy's practice is "mostly centered around getting bullying posts about teenagers taken down, on behalf of rich Silicon Valley parents", but that the dude had expertise in all social media, including YouTube. Obviously I wanted to talk to him, but I wasn't sure if the guy was too busy to educate me about YouTube.

Fortunately, this Bay Area attorney is a recreational poker player and had loosely heard of me from the past, and was happy to talk to me. Indeed, he told me that there is a "process" one must go through in order to get harmful videos/posts taken down from social media, and that the "report" feature rarely works as expected, especially on YouTube. He spent a surprising amount of time talking to me and answering every question I had about YouTube. While his practice mainly focused upon Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, he also had plenty of experience dealing with YouTube, and knew all of the ins and outs.

While some of my earlier assumptions were correct, some were incorrect, and others were incomplete. By the end, I knew a LOT more than before, and he also told me I could contact him any time with further questions, and he'd answer me when he had a moment. I can't tell you how much I appreciated this.

So what else did I learn? Read on...

[Dan Druff]

More Trouble Than It's Worth

First off, as I already assumed, you can't just pick a YouTube video/channel you don't like, and get rid of it. Doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter what resources you have. If the video absolutely isn't breaking any of YouTube's terms, then you can't touch it. All of the reporting in the world isn't going to change that, and even a famous/semi-famous person bringing attention to such a video will fail to get it removed.

HOWEVER...

YouTube's terms are extremely broad, and that's intentional. YouTube basically wants to have the right to both remove and not remove things at their discretion, so they leave their terms of service especially broad, and thus very much open to their own interpretation. This gives them the leeway to delete videos of their choosing with any slight violation of these broad terms, while leaving up other videos to where they can wiggle the terms around to look like a non-violation.

All of it boils down to, "Is the channel worth more than the trouble it is creating?"

What do I mean by trouble? I'm talking about things which can be detrimental to YouTube as a company, such as one or more of the following:

- The appearance that YouTube is tolerant/supportive of outright bigotry/hate speech

- The apperanace that YouTube is tolerant/supportive of intentional and dangerous misinformation campaigns

- The appearance that YouTube is tolerant/supportive of online bullying and/or harassment

- The appearance that YouTube is tolerant/supportive of incitement of violence

- The appearance that YouTube is tolerant/supportive of scams



The Report algorithm attempts to weigh the potential harm of the channel versus the present value of the channel. The removal of Steven Crowder from YouTube would cause a huge stink, and conservatives would scream "political bias", thus resulting in potential pressure from Republican politicans to regulate it. Thus, YouTube treads carefully. The removal of Christopher Mitchell would cause very little controversy, aside from a few dopes who believe he's the real deal.

However, as I said earlier, they do not want small channels to easily be removed via targeted reporting, or word would get around that this could be done, and YouTube would develop a reputation as a platform which could be manipulated into unfair censorship. Thus, small channels are also protected.

In order for a small channel to face video bans or complete removal, YouTube needs to feel it is legitimately causing enough of a problem to where taking action is their best solution. For this to occur, the following must be true:

- The channel must be relatively small and inconsequential

- The channel must be engaged in multiple clear violations of YouTube terms, to where YouTube could easily defend such disciplinary action if ever publicly questioned by the media

- There must be some kind of additional pressure upon YouTube beyond just the "Report" button being clicked -- either legal pressure from an actual attorney who knows what he's doing, or substantial social media attention to the channel

This is essentially how this Bay Area attorney gets the job done, where average Joes like you and I can't. He is an attorney. He practices out of the local area. He knows exactly who to contact and what to say. He knows the terms of service like the back of his hand, and can outline specific and clear violations, and detail specifically how they are causing harm.

When YouTube recevies contact from him, it is treated differently than the Report button. It is examined by human beings, and unless he's completely off base (which he never is, because he's a sharp guy, and won't make contact unless he can point to clear violations), YouTube usually deems that the content needs to come down, and they take action.

So what does this have to do with Chrissy, and perhaps others? Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Passing the Algorithmic Test

Let's step back for a moment to Report feature.

Occasionally it DOES work, and channels get removed. So how does one make the Report button work for them, without having to engage the services of a high priced Bay Area attorney?

Recall I said that the Report button is algorithmic. As a subsidiary of Google, and of course being a groundbreaking tech company prior to being purchased by Google, YouTube has very advanced techical resources and very brilliant engineers working behind the scenes.

The Report algorithm uses a lot of data to discern the legitimacy of the video being reported. These include, but are not limited to:

1) How many reports have been received, versus total time viewed? (Notice that total time viewed differs from number of views, and therefore isn't largely affected by viewbotting.)

2) How many reporters also reported several other videos on the same channel?

3) How many reporters also reported a high percentage of overall videos they've watched?

4) Did most of the reports come in within a short period of time, as compared to the time the video has been up and widely viewed? For example, take a popular video with 1,000,000 (real) views, about 80% of which were in the first 2 weeks after release in 2019, and the remaining 20% since. If almost all of the reports were this week, this would make it appear to be a targeted reporting scheme, since the initial 80% of views had relatively few reports.

5) Did the accounts reporting the video actually watch all or most of the video? (YouTube can easily see this.)

6) Are most of the reports from the same IP group, or same geographic area?

7) Are there any blatant rule violations in the video or description, which is easily discernible by automated analysis, such as spam, pornography, or prohibited links/topics?

If the reports pass YouTube's standards based upon the above (and other factors I didn't list, and some I don't know), the next step is for YouTube to attempt to transcribe the audio (and screen-read any signs or other printing in the video), and determine via AI whether a likely violation took place. In some cases, an automated bot bans the video and gives the creator a strike. In some others, it is sent to YouTube's team for manual review, having met all of the algorithmic requirements.

Unfortunately, the above factors prevent reporting campaigns against Chrissy's videos from working, aside from when he makes boneheaded mistakes like posting gambling affiliate links.

Are these the only ways videos get taken down from YouTube? No. Read on....

[Dan Druff]

Some Exceptions

There are certain kinds of violations which quickly get the attention of YouTube, even without reporting.

Copyright violations are often quickly caught by YouTube's own internal algorithms, or sometimes by copyright-reporting bots by large companies, and these videos are quickly terminated.

DMCA copyright complaints filed by individuals or companies can result in the temporary removal of the video, until the channel owner either sends a counter-notice or accepts the violation, the latter of which becomes a permanent removal and strike.

YouTube also infamously would scan videos for hot-button forbidden subjects, such as "COVID misinformation", and would give strikes to creators, even if the videos hadn't been reported.

There are various other ways a video can come down quickly (and sometimes automatically), but we won't get into this further, because it doesn't apply to the points I'm trying to make here. I just wanted to mention this for completeness.

Read on...

[Dan Druff]

Gambling Scams Aren't Easy Pickings

Chrissy's channel isn't easy to get taken down, because he isn't committing copyright violations, isn't threatening or bullying anyone, and isn't harassing anyone (except for AHoosierA via the legal system).

He's scamming people, but there's a fine line between "useless service" and "scam", and YouTube isn't going to spend the time or resources to determine this, especially for such a small time channel.

Even this hotshot Bay Area social media attorney has told me that this would be a particularly hard one to take down, due to the particular violation occurring -- a gambling coaching scam, which isn't a particularly straightforward scam for a non-gambler to identify occurring. What if Chrissy really is a big winning gambler, who is just selling his secrets? After all, there are legitimate Advantage Player seminars/lessons one can purchase to get into the world of AP gambling. So how is that different from what Chrissy is doing? We obviously know the difference, but the average YouTube employee -- even attorneys at YouTube -- will often have a hard time discerning the difference. Between that and the presumed lack of contact from any actual victims to YouTube via attorneys, even a talented social media attorney will have a hard sell as to why Chrissy's channel should be removed.

Does that mean we are powerless? No.

Chrissy is engaging in some real violations, even though they're not of the bullying or harassment variety. (He engaged in doxxing against AHoosierA, but sadly those videos are gone, and I no longer have the URL for them.)

I don't want to name these violations, because I don't want him to avoid making those same mistakes. However, I will be going through his videos and seeing what I can find, and I will consult this attorney what we can do with it.

This can also sometimes take time. This isn't Matlock, where the entire problem gets resolved in an hour. But I'm feeling optimistic that we have a new weapon we can utilize to finally take down that channel.

I have one more important thing to say, somewhat related to the above. Read on...

[Dan Druff]

We Need to Cooperate

Chrissy's channel is a problem. But his isn't the only problem here.

There is another channel which is particularly toxic, especially to our effort to spread the word about Chrissy. This particular channel feels it has a monopoly on exposure of Chrissy, and often attempts to bully people out of doing Chrissy-related videos.

We should all be on the same side here. The more exposure, the better. The more voices calling out Chrissy's coaching scam, the harder it becomes for him to dismiss it all as "dead broke jealous haters". People should be encouraged to keep making videos critical of Chrissy. However, a ton of YouTube content creators who have exposed Chrissy have seen attacks from one particular channel, which claims its goal is to stop Chrissy.

If the goal is to stop Chrissy, why harass other channels spreading awareness of him? Why mock this forum for analyzing him? Because we don't waste our time with useless (and often detrimental) "Report" campaigns, or making useless third-party reports to law enforcement?

This needs to stop. Everyone needs to be on the same side here, and everyone needs to cooperate. And if you don't want to cooperate, at least stop attacking those who are trying to do the same thing you are.

Unlike Chrissy's channel, this particular channel IS committing a lot of very clear and specific violations. This channel IS committing acts of harassment, bullying, and many other prohibited actions. This needs to end now. Focus on Chrissy and other real scammers, and leave the rest of us alone.

As I mentioned before, this Bay Area attorney is very expensive. However, I also mentioned he enjoys poker. We did a little trade -- I agreed to view a video of him playing an online poker tournament, and give my feedback to him, and in turn he took some action to remove one violating video from this channel. I told him to stop there -- not to attempt to remove that channel, but just to get that one video removed. I recently got the update that he was successful. This channel owner knows what I am talking about, and he also knows he hasn't told anyone about this.

I am offering to let bygones be bygones, and we all move forward with the same goal of stopping Chrissy's coaching scam. Otherwise, I shall probably be committing to doing some more poker coaching in the near future. We shall see what this channel owner chooses to do.

[nunbeater]

We Need to Cooperate

Chrissy's channel is a problem. But his isn't the only problem here.

There is another channel which is particularly toxic, especially to our effort to spread the word about Chrissy. This particular channel feels it has a monopoly on exposure of Chrissy, and often attempts to bully people out of doing Chrissy-related videos.

We should all be on the same side here. The more exposure, the better. The more voices calling out Chrissy's coaching scam, the harder it becomes for him to dismiss it all as "dead broke jealous haters". People should be encouraged to keep making videos critical of Chrissy. However, a ton of YouTube content creators who have exposed Chrissy have seen attacks from one particular channel, which claims its goal is to stop Chrissy.

If the goal is to stop Chrissy, why harass other channels spreading awareness of him? Why mock this forum for analyzing him? Because we don't waste our time with useless (and often detrimental) "Report" campaigns, or making useless third-party reports to law enforcement?

This needs to stop. Everyone needs to be on the same side here, and everyone needs to cooperate. And if you don't want to cooperate, at least stop attacking those who are trying to do the same thing you are.

Unlike Chrissy's channel, this particular channel IS committing a lot of very clear and specific violations. This channel IS committing acts of harassment, bullying, and many other prohibited actions. This needs to end now. Focus on Chrissy and other real scammers, and leave the rest of us alone.

As I mentioned before, this Bay Area attorney is very expensive. However, I also mentioned he enjoys poker. We did a little trade -- I agreed to view a video of him playing an online poker tournament, and give my feedback to him, and in turn he took some action to remove one violating video from this channel. I told him to stop there -- not to attempt to remove that channel, but just to get that one video removed. I recently got the update that he was successful. This channel owner knows what I am talking about, and he also knows he hasn't told anyone about this.

I am offering to let bygones be bygones, and we all move forward with the same goal of stopping Chrissy's coaching scam. Otherwise, I shall probably be committing to doing some more poker coaching in the near future. We shall see what this channel owner chooses to do.

aw shit getting ready for the "Dan Druff is a psycho stalker" posts on 2p2 again

[nunbeater]

Also holy fuck guys I made it through all 124 pages....jesus shitballs