vpFREE2 Forums

Anything goes on FREEvpFREE - Almost

#21

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

<<So now, when flabergasted with the truth, you make up a theory that

says asession which includes hundreds or thousands of hands is the
equivalent tojust one. Are you nuts or what.......>>

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

of mathematics.

You two clowns will say anything to make believe your phoney theories
are valid. But you messed this one up (such a surprise), Einstein. What
you more accurately meant to say is "automorphism" and neither has any
relationship to a game called video poker.

#22

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?>>

Uh...I guess you concede the point then.

<<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"?>>

The only stupidity is on your part if you don't understand what is meant by
that. You, on the other hand, claim you are playing for a living by losing
every day but making it up in volume. I've got some beachfront property in
Arizona I can sell you.

<<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.>>

I'm not surprised to learn that your vehement dumping on slot-club benefits
is also a complete lie. Tell me, have you ever told the truth in your entire
life?

Cogno

#23

<<What
you more accurately meant to say is "automorphism" and neither has any
relationship to a game called video poker.>>

Hahahahaha!

You are a complete idiot.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Isomorphism.html

You're going to look like Bozo the clown if you try to argue math with me,
snake boy.

Cogno

#24

--- 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?>>
Uh...I guess you concede the point then.

Looks like you've given up. But I'll tell you what--I'll accept and
bet $1million that you can't find a column. This'll show you what a
goofball you really are. Don't ever give up because you just NEVER
know where it might be!
  

The only stupidity is on your part if you don't understand what is

meant by that.

It's so humorous to see and here you folks say they win 'phantom
money"! Here's a flash, genius: You either win cash or you don't. All
that BS about making $30/hour whether you win or not is pure feel-
good positioning to give your type of player the self-confidence-
building necessary so you can justify playing far more than you
should.

I'm not surprised to learn that your vehement dumping on slot-club

benefits is also a complete lie.

That's because, as in apparently everything you pretend to know about
my strategy, you only see where I DON'T use a card. No professional
who wins consistently would EVER use a card. Read my columns again
and discover when I do use a card. Educate yourself on how to do it
right.

#25

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

<<What you more accurately meant to say is "automorphism" and

neither has any relationship to a game called video poker.>>

Hahahahaha!

You are a complete idiot.

Brilliant. Whata doin' just sittin there anyway? Looking up ridiculous
theories that only show you 'don't got it' upstairs where it counts?
You could be out making 30 phantom buck an hour!!! Get with your phoney
program and AT LEAST put in the effort of doing what you draw up on
paper.

#26

<<Looks like you've given up. But I'll tell you what--I'll accept and bet
$1million that you can't find a column. This'll show you what a goofball you
really are. Don't ever give up because you just NEVER know where it might
be!>>

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0104.html

A million dollars for five minutes work. That's $12M/hour. I'm pretty sure
that's my highest EV play ever.

Nice bet, idiot.
  
<<It's so humorous to see and here you folks say they win 'phantom
money"! Here's a flash, genius: You either win cash or you don't. All
that BS about making $30/hour whether you win or not is pure feel-
good positioning to give your type of player the self-confidence-
building necessary so you can justify playing far more than you
should.>>

You write as though you don't understand the first thing about gambling.
Tell your theory to the casino bosses who sit back and know that, win or
lose, they are raking in a nice theoretical hold on their games. Except when
I come by and beat them. But for you and your Martingale, they roll out the
red carpet.

I'm not surprised to learn that your vehement dumping on slot-club

benefits is also a complete lie.

<<That's because, as in apparently everything you pretend to know about
my strategy, you only see where I DON'T use a card. No professional
who wins consistently would EVER use a card. Read my columns again
and discover when I do use a card. Educate yourself on how to do it
right.>>

"Again"? Hahahaha. Do you really think I read your verborrhea in that
fish-wrap they dare to call a newspaper? You contradict yourself so many
times just flailing about trying to put words together here online that I
hardly need more ammo.

Where's my million?

Cogno

#27

<<Whata doin' just sittin there anyway? Looking up ridiculous theories that
only show you 'don't got it' upstairs where it counts?
You could be out making 30 phantom buck an hour!!! Get with your phoney
program and AT LEAST put in the effort of doing what you draw up on paper.>>

I'm making $300/hr playing poker online in the background while I'm amusing
myself with your idiocy. Today I'm down $1200. That should give your little
brain a headache.

Cogno

#28

I like how I can get you to waste your time almost at will! These
things just sort of 'float' over you. Must be all that intellect
radiates some type of heat wave emitting from that hole on top of
your head. Here's what I read: > > "How much will you bet me that I
can't find a column by BD in which

he say she does not always play perfectly?" Now tell me, where does

he tell us where "she" doen't always play perfectly? Yup, your EV is
rising by the minute.

You write as though you don't understand the first thing about
gambling. Tell your theory to the casino bosses who sit back and
know that, win or lose, they are raking in a nice theoretical hold
on their games.

Theory? You gots the wrong boy, boss. Lets see.....does the casino
manager of the RIO count REAL cash at the end of the day, or does he
count phantom bucks? Imagine going to Bank One and writing out a
deposit slip that says "This is today's deposit of $416,346. It
consists of $72,346 in cash, and $344,000 in phantom bucks. Thank
you." What's that pile of letters Dick would conjure up right about
now? ROTFMLOAPPXYZ???

"Again"? Hahahaha. Do you really think I read your verborrhea in
that fish-wrap they dare to call a newspaper?

Sour Grapes!

#29

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

I'm making $300/hr playing poker online in the background while I'm

amusing myself with your idiocy. Today I'm down $1200. That should give
your little brain a headache.

Your friend Jim T. could tell you that it's illegal in Nevada & the US
to gamble on-line. I'm making $600/hour with my investments. Got it
figured out yet?

#30

<<I like how I can get you to waste your time almost at will! These things
just sort of 'float' over you. Must be all that intellect radiates some type
of heat wave emitting from that hole on top of
your head. Here's what I read: > > "How much will you bet me that I
can't find a column by BD in which

he say she does not always play perfectly?" Now tell me, where does

he tell us where "she" doen't always play perfectly? Yup, your EV is rising
by the minute.>>

You introduced that typo when you attempted to use your underpowered brain
to quote my original post, which said "says he." Where's my million?

<<does the casino manager of the RIO count REAL cash at the end of the day,
or does he count phantom bucks? Imagine going to Bank One and writing out a
deposit slip that says "This is today's deposit of $416,346. It consists of
$72,346 in cash, and $344,000 in phantom bucks. Thank you." What's that pile
of letters Dick would conjure up right about now? ROTFMLOAPPXYZ???>>

They count both of course. Actuals below theoreticals can indicate bad luck
in high-limit games; rare jackpots hit; or employee theft. But in order to
OPEN a casino any sane operator would have to put out games where they have
a theoretical advantage. Do you see what a moron you are? You argue that
theoretical advantage isn't real, because the casinos are set up with a ...
THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE! Doh!

Where's my million? I want to put it with the rest.

Cogno

#31

<<Your friend Jim T. could tell you that it's illegal in Nevada & the US to
gamble on-line.>>

Who?

Nevada has attempted to make online gambling illegal but it's not clear they
have jurisdiction. It is certainly not illegal in the US to play poker
online, although it may be illegal to operate an online poker room.

<< I'm making $600/hour with my investments. Got it figured out yet?>>

Wow, $5.25 million a year! You must be good. Oh, I forgot -- you're a liar
and a fraud. Darn, I was going to ask you to teach me.

Cogno

#32

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

You introduced that typo when you attempted to use your

underpowered brain to quote my original post, which said "says he."
Where's my million?

Sorry Charlie. You lose.

They count both of course. Actuals below theoreticals can indicate

bad luck

in high-limit games; rare jackpots hit; or employee theft. But in

order to

OPEN a casino any sane operator would have to put out games where

they have

a theoretical advantage. Do you see what a moron you are? You argue

that

theoretical advantage isn't real, because the casinos are set up

with a ...

THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE! Doh!

What? Where? When....What are you saying? That the bank allows checks
to be written on a theoretical deposit?? Maybe on Christmas! And
employee theft? Is that what you would do?

Where's my million? I want to put it with the rest.

You should be fined for cheating.

#33

<<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

Here ya go, Einstein...........

IsomorphismThe idea behind an isomorphism is to realize that two groups are structurally the same even though the names and notation for the elements are different. We say that groups G and H are isomorphic if there is an isomorphism between them. Another way to think of an isomorphism is as a renaming of elements. For example, the set of complex numbers under complex multiplication, the set of integers under addition modulo 4, and the subgroup of look different but are structurally the same. They are all of order 4 (but that's not what makes them isomorphic) and are cyclic groups. The maps (for the first pair of groups) and (for the second and third of the groups) provide the necessary isomorphisms. We often give a name to certain collections of isomorphic groups. For example, the above groups are cyclic of order 4 (usually denoted as (multiplicative notation) or (additive notation)). When we say that there are only n groups of order k (or n groups up to isomorphism) we mean that there are only n isomorphic types. Any group of k elements must be isomorphic to one of these types. For example, there are only two groups of order 4 - cyclic of order 4 and the Klein 4 group. There are many groups with 4 elements but they are isomorphic to one of these. Up to isomorphism, there is only one group with a prime number of elements. It is the cyclic group where p is a prime. There is only one infinite cyclic group up to isomorphism, namely the integers under addition. In trying to prove groups isomorphic, we might set up a map between the two groups (following along the idea behind constructing a homomorphism). Then, perhaps we find this is not an isomorphism. And that is all we have found. We cannot conclude that the groups are not isomorphic yet. We might just have hit on the wrong map. For example, there are 120 bijections between two groups of order 5 (and 24 of these map the identity to the identity). Of these, only 4 are isomorphisms. The problem is much greater for more complicated groups. To show that two groups are not isomorphic, we need to exhibit a structural property of one group not shared by the other. For example, the cyclic group of order 4 has two elements of order 4 whereas the Klein 4 group has no elements of order 4. Thus the two cannot be isomorphic and belong in different isomorphism classes. Other structural things to look for (but not limited to) are number of (cyclic, abelian, non-abelian) subgroups, number of normal subgroups, isomorphism types of factor groups.

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

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com>
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:17:46 -0700
Subject: RE: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Anything goes on FREEvpFREE - Almost

#34

Do you ever have a point?

From: Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@g...>
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:17:46 -0700
Subject: RE: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Anything goes on FREEvpFREE - Almost

<<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

Here ya go, Einstein...........

IsomorphismThe idea behind an isomorphism is to realize that two

groups are structurally the same even though the names and notation
for the elements are different. We say that groups G and H are
isomorphic if there is an isomorphism between them. Another way to
think of an isomorphism is as a renaming of elements. For example,
the set of complex numbers under complex multiplication, the set of
integers under addition modulo 4, and the subgroup of look
different but are structurally the same. They are all of order 4 (but
that's not what makes them isomorphic) and are cyclic groups. The
maps (for the first pair of groups) and (for the second and third
of the groups) provide the necessary isomorphisms. We often give a
name to certain collections of isomorphic groups. For example, the
above groups are cyclic of order 4 (usually denoted as
(multiplicative notation) or (additive notation)). When we say that
there are only n groups of order k (or n groups up to isomorphism) we
mean that there are only n isomorphic types. Any group of k elements
must be isomorphic to one of these types. For example, there are only
two groups of order 4 - cyclic of order 4 and the Klein 4 group.
There are many groups with 4 elements but they are isomorphic to one
of these. Up to isomorphism, there is only one group with a prime
number of elements. It is the cyclic group where p is a prime. There
is only one infinite cyclic group up to isomorphism, namely the
integers under addition. In trying to prove groups isomorphic, we
might set up a map between the two groups (following along the idea
behind constructing a homomorphism). Then, perhaps we find this is
not an isomorphism. And that is all we have found. We cannot conclude
that the groups are not isomorphic yet. We might just have hit on the
wrong map. For example, there are 120 bijections between two groups
of order 5 (and 24 of these map the identity to the identity). Of
these, only 4 are isomorphisms. The problem is much greater for more
complicated groups. To show that two groups are not isomorphic, we
need to exhibit a structural property of one group not shared by the
other. For example, the cyclic group of order 4 has two elements of
order 4 whereas the Klein 4 group has no elements of order 4. Thus
the two cannot be isomorphic and belong in different isomorphism
classes. Other structural things to look for (but not limited to) are
number of (cyclic, abelian, non-abelian) subgroups, number of normal
subgroups, isomorphism types of factor groups.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Cardfather@A... wrote:

-----Original Message-----

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

#35

Do you ever straightforwardly answer a question?

Do you ever have a point?
>
> Here ya go, Einstein...........
>
> IsomorphismThe idea behind an isomorphism is to realize that two
groups are structurally the same even though the names and notation
for the elements are different. We say that groups G and H are
isomorphic if there is an isomorphism between them. Another way to
think of an isomorphism is as a renaming of elements. For example,
the set of complex numbers under complex multiplication, the set

of

integers under addition modulo 4, and the subgroup of look
different but are structurally the same. They are all of order 4

(but

that's not what makes them isomorphic) and are cyclic groups. The
maps (for the first pair of groups) and (for the second and third
of the groups) provide the necessary isomorphisms. We often give a
name to certain collections of isomorphic groups. For example, the
above groups are cyclic of order 4 (usually denoted as
(multiplicative notation) or (additive notation)). When we say

that

there are only n groups of order k (or n groups up to isomorphism)

we

mean that there are only n isomorphic types. Any group of k

elements

must be isomorphic to one of these types. For example, there are

only

two groups of order 4 - cyclic of order 4 and the Klein 4 group.
There are many groups with 4 elements but they are isomorphic to

one

of these. Up to isomorphism, there is only one group with a prime
number of elements. It is the cyclic group where p is a prime.

There

is only one infinite cyclic group up to isomorphism, namely the
integers under addition. In trying to prove groups isomorphic, we
might set up a map between the two groups (following along the idea
behind constructing a homomorphism). Then, perhaps we find this is
not an isomorphism. And that is all we have found. We cannot

conclude

that the groups are not isomorphic yet. We might just have hit on

the

wrong map. For example, there are 120 bijections between two groups
of order 5 (and 24 of these map the identity to the identity). Of
these, only 4 are isomorphisms. The problem is much greater for

more

complicated groups. To show that two groups are not isomorphic, we
need to exhibit a structural property of one group not shared by

the

other. For example, the cyclic group of order 4 has two elements of
order 4 whereas the Klein 4 group has no elements of order 4. Thus
the two cannot be isomorphic and belong in different isomorphism
classes. Other structural things to look for (but not limited to)

are

number of (cyclic, abelian, non-abelian) subgroups, number of

normal

···

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

subgroups, isomorphism types of factor groups.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#36

Always. Of course, that doesn't always mean you will understand the
answer.

···

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

Do you ever straightforwardly answer a question?

#37

> 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.

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.......

I guess I must be. I think 1-3+6 = 4. I also believe that talking about
4 works just as well as discussing 1-3+5 once the operations have been
completed. Since you obviously equate sanity with the opposite view,
please explain why this does not work.

Oh, another small question. Did you ever graduate from grade school?

···

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

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

#38

Bingo! That self-defense answer (what else is new) triggered the secret
behind this addicted video poker player. "rgmustain" R. G. Must Answer
In A Negative. Thank you, thank you....and I'm not ROFLMAO because I'm
not fat and I don't roll. But I laugh!

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

wrote:

···

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

> Do you ever straightforwardly answer a question?

Always. Of course, that doesn't always mean you will understand the
answer.

#39

Let's see....1-3+6. That looks like 3 separate events to me. Once the
operations have been completed? That sounds like you're saying a person
who went to his job 2300 times over 10 years only really did it ONCE!
Here's another reason why your desparation reach doesn't work: The
worker only cares about what he's accomplished at the end of each week
by how it affects his pay. That's what you call a SESSION. There's no
guarantees of what will happen tomorrow, or even if there will BE a
tomorrow. He needs to attain success TODAY, and he'll do whatever it
takes to make that happen. So all this metamorphosis stuff might look
good in a test tube from the other side of the river, but up close in
the school of common sense it's got less staying power than John Kerry
in a bar in Southie.

···

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

> 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.......

I guess I must be. I think 1-3+6 = 4. I also believe that talking
about 4 works just as well as discussing 1-3+5 once the operations

have been completed. Since you obviously equate sanity with the
opposite view, please explain why this does not work.

#40

Bingo? Another negative game.

I see you couldn't even come up with anything close to humerous. Don't
you ever get tired of being the fool?

Bingo! That self-defense answer (what else is new) triggered the

secret

behind this addicted video poker player. "rgmustain" R. G. Must

Answer

In A Negative. Thank you, thank you....and I'm not ROFLMAO because

I'm

···

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

not fat and I don't roll. But I laugh!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
> > Do you ever straightforwardly answer a question?
>
> Always. Of course, that doesn't always mean you will understand the
> answer.