Anything goes on FREEvpFREE - Almost

[vpFREE3]

I view FREEvpFREE as a catchall account that can
handle several threads simultaneously if required.
Each of these threads could have different participants
and different levels of civility (but no mandatory standards
beyond good taste considerations).

is to provide a place to send vpFREE threads that are
disruptive or off-topic. What happens to them after they
get to FvpF doesn't really concern me too much. I also
think that it's a good thing to offer a vp_heaven type
platform, whether it's used or not.

OTOH, a miniature vpFREE for discussing off-topic things
isn't very high on my agenda. There are a lot of other
non-vp forums that are available for most off-topic subjects,
and I'm very content with our current off-topic procedures.

Harry's suggestions have made me think a bit, and I'll keep
them under advisement, but I like FREEvpFREE as it is
and don't plan on making any major changes.

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

vpFREE Administrator wrote:

There aren't any constraints on political correctness, disruptiveness,
negativism etc. on FREEvpFREE but it would be nice if at least a
minimum level of civility is observed. Raunchiness steps way over the
good taste line and isn't acceptable on FvF.

"Harry Porter" wrote:

In other words, aside from providing a forum where topics peripheral
to/aside from vp can be intelligently discussed, FvF also serves as a
holding pen for those who can't manage to engage in constructive
discussion. I see those two purposes at cross purposes and self
defeating.

Limiting abusive comments to exclude "Go f*** yourself" (I assume that
this is included in the definition of "ranchiness") but permitting
comments such as "Go to hell" or aspersions such as "Monkeyboy" make
this a thoroughly disgusting forum. (While I appear to have singled out
one contributor, that's not my intent -- these are just the more recent
colorful examples.) I suppose I have no one other than myself to blame
when I occasionally tune in and and then turn away unamused and
unenlightened. I also have the poor taste to turn in fascination when
passing traffic accidents.

I hope you'll understand that I view an alternative forum where the same
decorum expected in vpFREE applies to be of greater service to the
members. Of course, I fully acknowledge that moderating a second group
is beyond the reasonable scope of the duties of the vpfree admin.

I'll simply express the opinion that the reason there's little
constructive activity these days and why, beyond self-serving spitball
throwing contests, alternative discussions wither and die when sidelined
here is because most members have long ago dismissed this forum.

I see a non-vp group that can discuss topics such as the traffic
situation in LV (or other XVP content to greater lengths) without
detracting from the direct focus of vpFREE nor having to deal with the
current predominant static to be of greater value. Personally, I'd
prefer to see abusive and contentious content sidelined to a group such
as SBvpFREE -- not that I'm personally volunteering for such a duty, but
perhaps someone with similar desire for the group might step up to the
plate.

At least put it up for a vote on vpFREE. If only 20 or so take part
than that would be a clear signal that the status quo serves just fine.
But it's a shame that the same intelligence that contributes to the vp
forum isn't provided with an alternative forum that effectively
encourages at least an equivalent level of XVP contribution as that
engaged in on vpFREE.

In keeping with the current spirit, anyone who may wish to tell me to
"go stuff myself" is fully entitled.

- Harry

···

From my point of view, the primary purpose of FvpF

[Rob_Singer1]

I mostly agree with that. Since this forum is used much of the time
whenever my name comes up, I seem to drive it. I don't mind engaging
in blabby exchanges with someone like Dick (who will meet with me in
Oct.) as an amusement now and then--even though he gets overly
excited and exhibits far more serious anxiety levels than any of it
should be worth. But I'm too active a person for constant
entertainment here. While Dick may consider his time away from the
computer as time to go to a casino, I work on my old muscle cars, I
walk & jog, I visit with my little granddaughter, and I go to the
shooting range once a week. Plus we're in the initial stages of
preparing to move. That helps HIM out also. He can get his neurotic
last word in, he can then say he 'clobbered' me, and everyone's
happy. Hasn't made much of a difference over the years though. I'm
still #1. My message is as strong as ever, I have thousands of
interested players who've signed up for my e-newsletter, most of my
vp trips remain winners [and the so-called 'inevitable large losses'
that Dick and other math geeks like to think define my play (along
with the many small winning sessions) have always been more than made
up for by the 'more frequent larger winners' which critics like to
ignore], and to add insult to injury for the jealous lot------I threw
in an effort at Wynn that makes blood boil. I can do it again
whenever and wherever I choose because I know how to talk to the
right people.

I can basically do what I want in this industry because I defy
standard practices that were put in place by the casinos for the
players. With my Romp-Thru-Town strategies, my on-and-off use of my
slot club cards, my short-term play strategy, and by the absence of
greed when I play, I control every aspect of what I'm doing rather
than letting the casinos do it. Promotions mean nothing to me, but
they're the world to advantage players. Most of them do know that's a
big mistake, and the rest will find out sooner or later.

vpFae is correct--I'm not rich from the sales of books. In fact, I
don't keep a penny of the royalties. Bob D. on the other hand, RELIES
on income from his books and all the other goods and services he
sells--including from his full-time job. Despite what always appears
to be a dig, I have a lot of respect for him in what he does. He
makes a living his way, and he is a very intelligent person. He is
seen playing higher-limit machines around and that's his way of
spending his money. Nothing wrong with that. But it is misleading
when combined with his message, and that's what I'm on all the time.

When he & I and hopefully 'Cogno' and anyone else who's a critic have
our discussion next month, I'm expecting one thing they'll want to do
is understand how each of my special plays that deviate from expert
strategy work. It's the only way anyone can understand how it is that
these plays have the ability to mthematically turn either negative OR
positive games into winners during any one session....at a time. I
suspect, however, that they really don't want to come to grips with
that, and will fight the sense of it all as best they can. Sort of
like playing a pinball machine into its 'tilt' mode.

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<Bob D. on the other hand, RELIES on income from his books and all the
other goods and services he sells--including from his full-time job. Despite
what always appears to be a dig, I have a lot of respect for him in what he
does. He makes a living his way, and he is a very intelligent person. He is
seen playing higher-limit machines around and that's his way of spending his
money. Nothing wrong with that. But it is misleading when combined with his
message, and that's what I'm on all the time. >>

Uh... Let's see if I have this straight. BD plays only positive-expectation
games and you call it "spending his money." You use a Martingale on negative
games, one of the oldest scam systems in the book, and call yourself a
winner. What's wrong with this picture?

<<When he & I and hopefully 'Cogno' and anyone else who's a critic have our
discussion next month, I'm expecting one thing they'll want to do is
understand how each of my special plays that deviate from expert strategy
work. It's the only way anyone can understand how it is that these plays
have the ability to mthematically turn either negative OR positive games
into winners during any one session....at a time.>>

Honestly, I don't know if there is a single sucker out there who listens to
you, but just in case there are one or two that are not you posting under
another alias, let me say it one more time.

I don't need to see any "special" plays. It doesn't matter. You cannot add
up negative numbers and come up with a positive number as a result. This is
why the Patent Office doesn't need to evaluate models of perpetual-motion
machines: they are impossible. What you claim is impossible. That's why we
know you're a liar. There's no question about it.

In a negative game, your chance of going broke before winning X starting
with a bankroll Y is always at least X/Y. Therefore, when you start with
your $17,200 bankroll, you will lose more than 2500/17,200 = 14.5% of your
sessions on average. With the $57,200 roll, you will lose at least 4.4% of
the time on average. With your claimed 250 sessions, the odds of your being
an overall winner without ever having hit a jackpot over $100k are quite
low. The more likely explanation is that you're a fraud. Your constant
dodging of proof and preference for ad hominem attacks supports that
conclusion.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

Uh... Let's see if I have this straight. BD plays only positive-

expectation games and you call it "spending his money."

More nonsense insinuated. You think first because he SAYS he only
plays positive games that he does? And then you think he can't
possibly lose because of that? If you have the ability & the
contacts, check and see just how much that "FREE" Dodge Magnum he won
in the drawing at the Palms cost him a few months ago---where he
played 'only positive games'.

You use a Martingale on negative games?

What Martingale?? And I see you're caught up in the baloney that all
critics are but you just don't know how to make an edible sandwich
out of it. Here's what you're saying: 100.0000001% means a player
will WIN; 99.999999% means he will LOSE. See how stupid that is.....
  

I don't need to see any "special" plays. It doesn't matter. You

cannot add up negative numbers and come up with a positive number as
a result.

Who "adds them up"? Each session is an individual event unrelated to
any that came before or that have yet to come. Ever hear of that?

In a negative game, your chance of going broke before winning X
startingwith a bankroll Y is always at least X/Y. Therefore, when
you start withyour $17,200 bankroll, you will lose more than
2500/17,200 = 14.5% of your sessions on average. With the $57,200
roll, you will lose at least 4.4% ofthe time on average. With your
claimed 250 sessions, the odds of your being an overall winner
without ever having hit a jackpot over $100k are quite low. The more
likely explanation is that you're a fraud. Your constant dodging of
proof and preference for ad hominem attacks supports that conclusion.

Not disagreeing with the math here. Only problem is, you're applying
long-term theory to short-term play, and that will never produce a
rationale answer. You'll always come out with a negative number if
you assume play on negative expectations games, and you'll always
come out with a winner if I told you I only played positive
expectation games. That's no strategy, and it's no way to analyze how
I play. I think I've won 219 sessions, and they're not all the single-
play strategy where I try to win $2500. There has been one $100k
jackpot. You just don't understand the strategy well enough to be
calling me anything. I've offered any math person or 'expert' or
anyone who wants to take it to the most geekiest of math nerds they
want, the opportunity to sit with me for as long as it takes in order
for a program/simulation to be set up--if possible--to prove success
is very possible and that my reported win results are entirely
possible. Oddly, no one cares to do it even after they challenge me
on stepping up to the plate and doing it. To me that says no one
WANTS to believe it even if the numbers cruch out that way. So the #1
player continues on.

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<You think first because he SAYS he only plays positive games that he
does?>>

Yes. I have observed him playing many times and it is always positive games
with optimal strategy.

<< And then you think he can't possibly lose because of that? If you have
the ability & the contacts, check and see just how much that "FREE" Dodge
Magnum he won in the drawing at the Palms cost him a few months ago---where
he played 'only positive games'.>>

No. He is gambling. There are two kinds of gamblers: advantage players, such
as BD, and self-deluded losers, such as you. One can always lose a positive
bet. But the great likelihood is that over the course of a year or a
lifetime, the advantage gambler will come out ahead so long as he respects
bankroll requirements. There is a tiny chance he will not, probably less
than the chance of the average person being killed in an automobile
accident.

<<What Martingale?? And I see you're caught up in the baloney that all
critics are but you just don't know how to make an edible sandwich
out of it. Here's what you're saying: 100.0000001% means a player
will WIN; 99.999999% means he will LOSE. See how stupid that is.....>>

Martingale refers to any system in which you increase your bets after
losing. It is designed to produce a small win frequently and a large loss
infrequently. Yes, I agree your statement is stupid because it shows you
don't understand the importance of probability in gambling. It is not even
close to what I am saying.
  
<<Each session is an individual event unrelated to any that came before or
that have yet to come.>>

So you lied when you said your system changes based on your current running
win average? Oops! I guess the events aren't unrelated after all! Your odds
of winning a session go WAY down if you're not bringing out the extra $40k.

<<Only problem is, you're applying long-term theory to short-term play, and
that will never produce a rationale answer.>>

On the contrary, the math I've given you is ONLY for short-term play. You
have a greater than 14% chance of losing each of your $17,200 sessions
before winning $2500 and a greater than 4.4% chance of losing each of your
$57,200 sessions. Whether the game is slightly positive or slightly negative
doesn't affect those odds much.

<< You'll always come out with a negative number if you assume play on
negative expectations games, and you'll always come out with a winner if I
told you I only played positive expectation games.>>

Again, you seem to display complete ignorance of probability theory. There
is no "always" in gambling, just expectation and variance.

<< That's no strategy, and it's no way to analyze how I play. I think I've
won 219 sessions, and they're not all the single- play strategy where I try
to win $2500. There has been one $100k jackpot.>>

On the contrary, it's a wonderful way to analyze how you play since the math
works without needing any understanding of your system other than that each
component bet has a negative expectation.

<< You just don't understand the strategy well enough to be calling me
anything. I've offered any math person or 'expert' or anyone who wants to
take it to the most geekiest of math nerds they want, the opportunity to sit
with me for as long as it takes in order for a program/simulation to be set
up--if possible--to prove success is very possible and that my reported win
results are entirely possible. Oddly, no one cares to do it even after they
challenge me on stepping up to the plate and doing it. To me that says no
one WANTS to believe it even if the numbers cruch out that way.>>

This is what Hitler called "the big lie," right? You've been challenged many
times and you refuse to allow anyone to watch you. There is no need for
anyone to sit down with you and understand your system because, as I've
explained, the math works for ANY system based on negative-expectation bets.
Your win results are indeed possible; I guesstimate it's only about 100-to-1
to parlay $20k into $650k playing only slightly negative games and without
hitting any big jackpots. But it's much more likely you're a fraud, since
you won't let anyone verify your results and you've been caught lying so
many times.

<<So the #1 player continues on.>>

You look more like #2 to me.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"

Yes. I have observed him playing many times and it is always
positive games with optimal strategy.

First, everyone who knows what they're doing TRIES to play optimal
strategy, but no one play perfectly. Plus, someone like him plays for
many hours at a sitting, and efficiency deteriorates exponentially
with each passing hour. I guess you could say he plays positive games
when there aren't many left in the denominations he plays. It's like
creative financing. Adding in slot club benefits and whatever else he
needs to figure in does make the game >100%. But it really isn't.

No. He is gambling. There are two kinds of gamblers: advantage
players, such as BD, and self-deluded losers, such as you. One can
always lose a positive bet. But the great likelihood is that over
the course of a year or a lifetime, the advantage gambler will come
out ahead so long as he respects bankroll requirements. There is a
tiny chance he will not, probably less than the chance of the
average person being killed in an automobile accident.

Well, I think by now you would agree Bob HAS NOT respected any kind
of bankroll requirements when he plays. You guys seem to give him a
pass when it comes to that lucky night at the MGM, but I know he's
played like that before and especially after the royals. All you're
saying about his lifetime expectations is what theory says based on a
perfect setting, and he does not own that. The same misguidance leads
you to claim I'm a loser. All that says is that people believe what
they want about others, as long as it fits into their theoretical
threshhold.

Martingale refers to any system in which you increase your bets
after losing.

I don't increase my bets after losing. Here you're content to apply
table game semantics to video poker. It's the easy way out and you're
no different than anyone else who's criticized my successful strategy.

So you lied when you said your system changes based on your current
running win average? Oops! I guess the events aren't unrelated after
all! Your odds of winning a session go WAY down if you're not
bringing out the extra $40k.

Huh?? That's how the strategy is played within an individual session.
Your point isn't clear.

On the contrary, the math I've given you is ONLY for short-term
play. You have a greater than 14% chance of losing each of your
$17,200 sessions before winning $2500 and a greater than 4.4% chance
of losing each of your $57,200 sessions. Whether the game is
slightly positive or slightly negative doesn't affect those odds
much.

No, look at your wording. "each of your sessions" implies that you
need substantially more than one to make your point. But you are on
the right track. A 14% of losing $17,200 before winning at least
$2500 makes sense to do, only you would never accept that any winning
session that's >$2500 ever exist. They do all the time, and some are
quite large. The $57,200 event is even more favorable.

Again, you seem to display complete ignorance of probability
theory. There is no "always" in gambling, just expectation and
variance.

Probability theory is what my strategy is based on. Look at the para.
above and tell me why I shouldn't expect to win much more than I lose.

On the contrary, it's a wonderful way to analyze how you play since
the math works without needing any understanding of your system
other than that each component bet has a negative expectation.

My main argument with the math geeks. You work things out on paper
and expect that to be the case in a casino at a machine, and it ONLY
makes paper-sense if produced in math model format as determined by
the long-term.

This is what Hitler called "the big lie," right? You've been
challenged many times and you refuse to allow anyone to watch you.

Again, you're wrong. Both my publishers spent several sessions with
me to see how I do what I do. At the beginning, to create my own
credibility (and GBC & GT have over 70 years of it between them) I
gave them this small sample of what it was like. Now, as I play for a
living, I don't allow anyone to distract or disturb me, and who would
be available for the 40 or 50 sessions at exactly the same time I
play WHERE I play and for as long as I need to play, to make that
option meaningful. As you can see, it is not. The only way to
convince anyone would be to be witnessed at least 40-50 times--which
is impossible. A 1-time witness would only create a bigger-mouthed
critic who would never endorse or agree with my play after that. So
when you say I've been 'challenged' and I 'refused' you really need
to take the spin off of it. Think about this--Would Dancer want to or
allow anyone to follow him around and watch him over his shoulder
every moment and every single hand he plays even for a week? There's
your answer.

I guesstimate it's only about 100-to-1 to parlay $20k into $650k
playing only slightly negative games and without
hitting any big jackpots. But it's much more likely you're a fraud,
since you won't let anyone verify your results and you've been
caught lying so many times.

What's a big jackpot to you? I have many $5 royals, some $10 and one
$25. And where's that $20k come from? I clearly state my bankroll for
this strategy is to avoid ruin is 3X 400 credits of each denomination
I play. I understand why you would and others would like me to BE a
fraud. You just don't have the basis for it to be real.

The #1 player.

[Rick_Bronstein]

I've been reading this stuff go back and forth and am I the only one who
"gets it?"

So for every 6 winning sessions of at least $2,500 a person should
lose $17,200.
On paper that means that after 7 sessions, one should be down $2,200.

BUT, as I understand this, $2,500 is the MINIMUM profit to end the
session. This
figure is arbitrary. I would guess that many sessions end with a
profit of $5,000
or more. It is more interesting to note what the AVERAGE win per
session would be.

This being the case, does the math tell me that I would likely win
with this type
of strategy? Obviously, if the AVERAGE win is $3,000 then the 14% risk of ruin
is in my favor. In 100 sessions I lose $240,800 and win $258,000.

If we use a full $57,200 session I assume I would lose that 4.4 times
for every 95.6
times I win, right? So I lose $251,680. If my average win is
$3,000 then I win $286,800.

I don't know what the AVERAGE win really is but I bet it's more
likely to be over
$3,000 than to be closer to $2,500.

From what I can see here, it's a winning strategy even when one
applies math. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Rick

> On the contrary, the math I've given you is ONLY for short-term
>play. You have a greater than 14% chance of losing each of your
>$17,200 sessions before winning $2500 and a greater than 4.4% chance
>of losing each of your $57,200 sessions. Whether the game is
>slightly positive or slightly negative doesn't affect those odds
>much.

No, look at your wording. "each of your sessions" implies that you
need substantially more than one to make your point. But you are on
the right track. A 14% of losing $17,200 before winning at least
$2500 makes sense to do, only you would never accept that any winning
session that's >$2500 ever exist. They do all the time, and some are
quite large. The $57,200 event is even more favorable.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Cogno_Scienti]

<< From what I can see here, it's a winning strategy even when one applies
math. Please tell me where I'm wrong.>>

Reread my original post and you should be able to find your error. Look for
the part about X/Y.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

I've been reading this stuff go back and forth and am I the only
one who "gets it?"

You're close to getting it because you don't seem to be coming in NOT
wanting to get it. Here's some more figures about my overall play for
the past 8+ years. I've played 157 Single-Play Strategy sessions
(where my win goal is $2500). 93 sessions are spread between my other
4 strategies, and are played with a lower win goal, which varies
anywhere between $200 and $1500.

As of today, my current avg. session result is +$2581 (based on all
250 sessions--win or lose--to date). My average win for the 157
Single-Play sessions is +$3329, again, win or lose. This seems to be
the strategy in question. The other 93 sessions, whether I won or
lost, average out to +$1318/session.

Very very seldom is my win at +$2500. My largest win has been about
$96k and my largest loss is around $34k. I win approx. 87% of the
time. All these numbers are very realizeable when one follows my Play
Strategies to the letter, and to do so one MUST know all the special
plays and when to apply them. No cold feet, no uncomfortable
distractions, no counting cash back or any of that other baloney, and
no worrying about whether the machine is 98% or 102%.

So for every 6 winning sessions of at least $2,500 a person should
lose $17,200.
On paper that means that after 7 sessions, one should be down

$2,200.

BUT, as I understand this, $2,500 is the MINIMUM profit to end the
session. This
figure is arbitrary. I would guess that many sessions end with a
profit of $5,000
or more. It is more interesting to note what the AVERAGE win per
session would be.

This being the case, does the math tell me that I would likely win
with this type
of strategy? Obviously, if the AVERAGE win is $3,000 then the 14%

risk of ruin

is in my favor. In 100 sessions I lose $240,800 and win $258,000.

If we use a full $57,200 session I assume I would lose that 4.4

times

for every 95.6
times I win, right? So I lose $251,680. If my average win is
$3,000 then I win $286,800.

I don't know what the AVERAGE win really is but I bet it's more
likely to be over
$3,000 than to be closer to $2,500.

From what I can see here, it's a winning strategy even when one
applies math. Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Rick

> > On the contrary, the math I've given you is ONLY for short-term
> >play. You have a greater than 14% chance of losing each of your
> >$17,200 sessions before winning $2500 and a greater than 4.4%

chance

> >of losing each of your $57,200 sessions. Whether the game is
> >slightly positive or slightly negative doesn't affect those odds
> >much.
>
>No, look at your wording. "each of your sessions" implies that you
>need substantially more than one to make your point. But you are on
>the right track. A 14% of losing $17,200 before winning at least
>$2500 makes sense to do, only you would never accept that any

winning

>session that's >$2500 ever exist. They do all the time, and some

are

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rick Bronstein <rick@g...> wrote:

>quite large. The $57,200 event is even more favorable.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<First, everyone who knows what they're doing TRIES to play optimal
strategy, but no one play perfectly.>>

So you admit you don't know what you're doing?

<< Plus, someone like him plays for many hours at a sitting, and efficiency
deteriorates exponentially with each passing hour.>>

Nonsense. I doubt you even know what "exponentially" means.

<< I guess you could say he plays positive games when there aren't many left
in the denominations he plays. It's like creative financing. Adding in slot
club benefits and whatever else he needs to figure in does make the game

100%. But it really isn't.>>

Yes, the ability to add is an important one for a gambler. Some of us can
even multiply!

<<Well, I think by now you would agree Bob HAS NOT respected any kind of
bankroll requirements when he plays. You guys seem to give him a pass when
it comes to that lucky night at the MGM, but I know he's played like that
before and especially after the royals. All you're saying about his lifetime
expectations is what theory says based on a perfect setting, and he does not
own that. The same misguidance leads you to claim I'm a loser. All that says
is that people believe what they want about others, as long as it fits into
their theoretical threshhold.>>

I don't know how anything can "fit into" a "threshold." I don't think you
know what half the words you use mean.

BD allows for an error/tip rate which he factors into his calculations.
Perfection is not required. You play negative games. No system can overcome
that.

<<I don't increase my bets after losing. Here you're content to apply table
game semantics to video poker. It's the easy way out and you're no different
than anyone else who's criticized my successful strategy.>>

From your web site: <<Rule #4: If 100 credits are lost on BP and 300 are
lost on DB, DDB, or TBP, I advance to the next denomination and begin the
process again. >>

<<Your point isn't clear.>>

It involves math.

<<"each of your sessions" implies that you need substantially more than one
to make your point. But you are on the right track. A 14% of losing $17,200
before winning at least $2500 makes sense to do, only you would never accept
that any winning session that's >$2500 ever exist. They do all the time, and
some are quite large. The $57,200 event is even more favorable.>>

The 14% is the mathematical minimum for a break-even game and a maximum win
equal to the minimum win. With your system, you would actually lose more
than 14% of sessions on average since the game is negative and you can win
more than the minimum. This is the answer to the question you posted under
your other alias.

<<My main argument with the math geeks. You work things out on paper and
expect that to be the case in a casino at a machine, and it ONLY makes
paper-sense if produced in math model format as determined by the
long-term.>>

That is meaningless gibberish as far as I can tell. Are you implying that
there are different forms of math for indoors and outdoors? And short-term
or long-term has NO effect on expectation, only on certainty. And the longer
one plays your system, the more certain you are to lose, as I'm sure you are
aware. I hope some sucker who plays your system sues you for all you're
worth, if anything.

<<Both my publishers spent several sessions with me to see how I do what I
do. At the beginning, to create my own credibility (and GBC & GT have over
70 years of it between them) I gave them this small sample of what it was
like.>>

Only someone who had never picked up an issue of GT could say it has
"credibility." This is a publication that gives tips for winning at Keno!

<< Now, as I play for a living, I don't allow anyone to distract or disturb
me, and who would be available for the 40 or 50 sessions at exactly the same
time I play WHERE I play and for as long as I need to play, to make that
option meaningful. As you can see, it is not. The only way to convince
anyone would be to be witnessed at least 40-50 times--which is impossible. A
1-time witness would only create a bigger-mouthed critic who would never
endorse or agree with my play after that. So when you say I've been
'challenged' and I 'refused' you really need to take the spin off of it.>>

That makes no sense. You're likely to win in one session, and very likely to
be behind after 50. Besides, as I keep reminding you, nobody needs to sit
with you, talk with you, or look at you to know that your system cannot
work. It's mathematically certain that it does not work.

<< Think about this--Would Dancer want to or allow anyone to follow him
around and watch him over his shoulder every moment and every single hand he
plays even for a week? There's your answer.>>

Sure he would.

<<What's a big jackpot to you? I have many $5 royals, some $10 and one $25.
And where's that $20k come from? I clearly state my bankroll for this
strategy is to avoid ruin is 3X 400 credits of each denomination I play. I
understand why you would and others would like me to BE a fraud. You just
don't have the basis for it to be real.>>

Ok, so you parlayed $150k into like $800k? Is that your claim?

<<The #1 player.>>

You look like #2 to me.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

<<First, everyone who knows what they're doing TRIES to play optimal
strategy, but no one play perfectly.>>

So you admit you don't know what you're doing?

Huh? I know the games I play perfectly, and I know exactly when to
deviate from optimal-play. But no, I wouldn't be able to PLAY every
hand mathematically perfect because no one can do that.

Plus, someone like him plays for many hours at a sitting, and
efficiency deteriorates exponentially with each passing hour.

Nonsense. I doubt you even know what "exponentially" means.

Why would you say 'nonsense' when you know what fatigue (and to a
somewhat lesser extent-distractions) do, esp. over time?
  

I don't know how anything can "fit into" a "threshold." I don't think

Stop right there. You're NOT thinking.

BD allows for an error/tip rate which he factors into his
calculations. Perfection is not required. You play negative games.
No system can overcome that.

Wrong. Bob claims he's perfect and even argues with you guys over
penalty card issues. I agree perfection isn't required. I deviate all
the time.
  

From your web site: <<Rule #4: If 100 credits are lost on BP and
300 are lost on DB, DDB, or TBP, I advance to the next denomination
and begin the process again.

Wow, you got it right! So show me where when I lose a hand I
progress.
  

The 14% is the mathematical minimum for a break-even game and a
maximum win equal to the minimum win. With your system, you would
actually lose more than 14% of sessions on average since the game is
negative and you can win more than the minimum. This is the answer
to the question you posted under your other alias.

I won't argue that since you refuse to acknowledge the substantial
advantage the special plays add. My 'loss rate' is just under 13%
overall.

That is meaningless gibberish as far as I can tell. Are you
implying that there are different forms of math for indoors and
outdoors? And short-term or long-term has NO effect on expectation,
only on certainty. And the longer one plays your system, the more
certain you are to lose, as I'm sure you are aware. I hope some
sucker who plays your system sues you for all you're worth, if
anything.

It would be jibberish to you because you block out the common sense
factor. Put it on a piece of paper and gee, it's SUPPOSED to work out
that way. Go into a casino (or on your WinPoker, etc.) inside or out,
and see just what really happens when you play a single session. And
each session is an individual session, regardless of how you people
like to add them all up into one lifetime event.
  

Only someone who had never picked up an issue of GT could say it has
"credibility." This is a publication that gives tips for winning at
Keno!

Oh. Brilliant.
  

That makes no sense. You're likely to win in one session, and very
likely to be behind after 50. Besides, as I keep reminding you,
nobody needs to sit with you, talk with you, or look at you to know
that your system cannot work. It's mathematically certain that it
does not work.

Hello McFly!...or is it Einstein?? You're the one criticizing my not
allowing anyone to watch. Now that you get a clear picture of why
not, you're sinking on the issue.

Think about this--Would Dancer want to or allow anyone to follow him
around and watch him over his shoulder every moment and every
single hand he plays even for a week? There's your answer.>>

Sure he would.

Then let's see you sign him up to do just that.

Ok, so you parlayed $150k into like $800k? Is that your claim?

My bankroll used only for video poker is around $172k. I've won $645k
over the time I've played my strategy. Read it and weep some more.

[rgmustain]

I pulled this out of Singer's reply as it is a ploy used quite often by
Rob. The original quote by Cogno_Scienti was:

"Martingale refers to any system in which you increase your bets after
losing."

Does anyone see any reference to a "hand". Nope, none there. Yet when
Singer replies he adds this in so he can deny he plays an obvious
Martingale system which he knows has been proven invalid time and
again. It was no mistake that Rob did this. He knows that if his system
gets labels as a Martingale system that he loses much credibility. He
will do anything he can to deny it.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

> From your web site: <<Rule #4: If 100 credits are lost on BP and
>300 are lost on DB, DDB, or TBP, I advance to the next denomination
>and begin the process again.

Wow, you got it right! So show me where when I lose a hand I
progress.

[Rob_Singer1]

OK Mr. Wizard. Now show us where, in Martingale's Strategy, it
identifies how it can be applied to video poker. Can't work both ways,
can it. Now go back to your Indian casino and lose a few buck, and see
if your wife stil wants to sit thru more of those Dancer classes you
make her go to as you continually turn her into the sadistical addict
you already are.

Does anyone see any reference to a "hand". Nope, none there. Yet when
Singer replies he adds this in so he can deny he plays an obvious
Martingale system which he knows has been proven invalid time and
again. It was no mistake that Rob did this. He knows that if his

system

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

gets labels as a Martingale system that he loses much credibility. He
will do anything he can to deny it.

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<Bob claims he's perfect>>

Lie.

<<you refuse to acknowledge the substantial advantage the special plays
add.>>

You can't even maintain a lie for a whole day. In another message you just
admitted they make the game further negative.

<<you block out the common sense factor.>>

By that I guess you mean the things people commonly believe that are wrong.
That's how casinos make their money.

<<see just what really happens when you play a single session.>>

You don't play a single session with your system. You keep playing sessions
at higher denominations hoping to have a win, in classic Martingale fashion.

<< And each session is an individual session, regardless of how you people
like to add them all up into one lifetime event.>>

By "you people" I assume you mean people who know what they're talking
about.
  
<<My bankroll used only for video poker is around $172k. I've won $645k over
the time I've played my strategy. Read it and weep some more.>>

Better yet, why don't I call the IRS whistleblower's hotline and let them
know just how much you're claiming to have made? I'm sure they'll be
interested in why you haven't paid taxes on it.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

<<Bob claims he's perfect>>

Lie. Nope.

<<you refuse to acknowledge the substantial advantage the special

plays add.

You can't even maintain a lie for a whole day. In another message

you just admitted they make the game further negative.

Now you're so blind as to not believe negative games can win a
session? Like I said, people like you can't see any further than a
positive game means you win, and a negative games means you lose. No
wonder the casinos live off of 'advantage players' and why their
stupid promotions are geared specifically towards them.

<<see just what really happens when you play a single session.>>

You don't play a single session with your system. You keep playing

sessions at higher denominations hoping to have a win, in classic
Martingale fashion.

Better yet, why don't I call the IRS whistleblower's hotline and

let them know just how much you're claiming to have made? I'm sure
they'll be interested in why you haven't paid taxes on it.

More jealousy. BTW--If you read GT 7 weeks ago you'd see where I
wrote all about my just-completed multi-year IRS professional
gambling audit. Why would you say I haven't paid taxes on it, unless
you're like Thompson and so envious you quivering. One thing's for
sure--someone like you doesn't have to worry about paying taxes on
winnings.

[rgmustain]

You still seem to have that brain block in full operation. What part
of ANY and ALL alludes you? With your math illiteracy you have no
idea do you? Let me help. A single VP session is mathematically
equivalent to a single hand. You either win or lose in that session
and either move up the progression or not.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

OK Mr. Wizard. Now show us where, in Martingale's Strategy, it
identifies how it can be applied to video poker. Can't work both

ways,

can it. Now go back to your Indian casino and lose a few buck, and

see

if your wife stil wants to sit thru more of those Dancer classes

you

make her go to as you continually turn her into the sadistical

addict

you already are.

> Does anyone see any reference to a "hand". Nope, none there. Yet

when

> Singer replies he adds this in so he can deny he plays an obvious
> Martingale system which he knows has been proven invalid time and
> again. It was no mistake that Rob did this. He knows that if his
system
> gets labels as a Martingale system that he loses much

credibility. He

···

> will do anything he can to deny it.

[Rob_Singer1]

So now, when flabergasted with the truth, you make up a theory that
says a session which includes hundreds or thousands of hands is the
equivalent to just one. Are you nuts or what.......

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

You still seem to have that brain block in full operation. What part
of ANY and ALL alludes you? With your math illiteracy you have no
idea do you? Let me help. A single VP session is mathematically
equivalent to a single hand. You either win or lose in that session
and either move up the progression or not.

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<Bob claims he's perfect>>

Lie. Nope.

How much will you bet me that I can't find a column by BD in which he says
he does not always play perfectly?

<<Now you're so blind as to not believe negative games can win a
session?>>

Winning a session is not what "advantage" means.

<< Like I said, people like you can't see any further than a
positive game means you win, and a negative games means you lose. No
wonder the casinos live off of 'advantage players' and why their
stupid promotions are geared specifically towards them.>>

No one has ever said anything like that, nor is it true. You show yourself
to be a bigger and bigger liar and fool.

And there's another of my favorite pieces of Singer wisdom: not only should
you play bad games with bad strategy, but NEVER take the free money the
casino is giving away!

<<More jealousy. BTW--If you read GT 7 weeks ago you'd see where I
wrote all about my just-completed multi-year IRS professional
gambling audit. Why would you say I haven't paid taxes on it, unless
you're like Thompson and so envious you quivering. One thing's for
sure--someone like you doesn't have to worry about paying taxes on
winnings.>>

Well, the IRS generally audits people who AREN'T paying the expected taxes,
not the other way around. As for envious, I have won far more than you even
lie about. You are, however, one of the top trolls on the internet and
that's go to be good for something. Have you considered a career in
pre-owned autos?

Cogno

[Cogno_Scienti]

<<So now, when flabergasted with the truth, you make up a theory that says a
session which includes hundreds or thousands of hands is the equivalent to
just one. Are you nuts or what.......>>

Nope. He's right. It's called "isomorphism" and is the basis for much of
mathematics.

Cogno

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

How much will you bet me that I can't find a column by BD in which

he sayshe does not always play perfectly?

How much will you bet me that I can?

<< Like I said, people like you can't see any further than a
positive game means you win, and a negative games means you lose.

No wonder the casinos live off of 'advantage players' and why their

stupid promotions are geared specifically towards them.>>

No one has ever said anything like that, nor is it true. You show

yourself to be a bigger and bigger liar and fool.

Ever hear any of you guys stupidly claim "I'm playing a positive game
that's making me $30/hour, and whether I win or lose doesn't matter,
because I made money since I had the advantage"?

And there's another of my favorite pieces of Singer wisdom: not

only shouldyou play bad games with bad strategy, but NEVER take the
free money thecasino is giving away!

Huh? I'm staying at the Venetian in a November because they're giving
me $800 in free-play. I'll take it, only i won't be flushing any more
than $800 through. I'll leave that for the advantage playing addicts
to do.

Well, the IRS generally audits people who AREN'T paying the

expected taxes

Oh.

As for envious, I have won far more than you

OK.