vpFREE2 Forums

Cogno'd Humiliation.....

#1

....and little dicky's wedgie gets tighter all the time!

While you guys were arguing and John 'the chicken' 3-to-the-royal
was privately showing me how jealous he is of me--I was busy getting
the last laugh!I wouldn't expect anyone to take me up on my offer to
play 50 verifiable sessions---I'd say you idiots finally got it. So
while I have the time during the move to tic tic tic off littly
dicky some more and show Congo he's a coward with no recorse, I'll
treat you all to a dose of THE TRUTH from this week's GT:

ENJOY, FOOLS!!!

The Undeniable Truth
Yes, 99% can win!
When common sense trumps math models

···

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

October 18, 2005 - by Rob Singer

Over the years it's been my play strategy against theirs – simple
common sense vs. math models, probability theories and geek-like
thinking. When I came out with my tested and very successful play
strategy prior to the release of "The Undeniable Truth," the so-
called experts said I was a loser, liar and a fraud, and that I
couldn't possibly win with a strategy that utilizes mostly negative
(expected value) EV games.

Many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of profiting later,
I continue to prove them wrong. Those who said I'd be gone in 60
seconds are now eating their words. Those who proclaimed I'd be
nothing more than another scam artist are finally facing up to
reality. And those who just won't hear of another play strategy that
can beat the casinos rather than wasting time trying to outsmart the
video poker computersas, DUH! ADVANTAGE PLAYERS, continue to squirm.
Yes, they have made their own beds, and now it's time to try to
sleep in-between the nightmares they and no one else has created.

As soon as I inform everyone that my web site allows anyone access
to my play strategies at no charge, the critics then peel down the
onion even further in what is always a futile effort to find a way
to discredit how I play. Although they see this as a very refreshing
change to reading the same theoretical nonsense over and over again
and being hounded to buying useless video poker trinkets, just as
with ANY promotion-chasing/advantage-playing addict in denial, they
WANT their theories to be true at any cost.

The latest mantra is the intonation that it is impossible for me to
win unless I were to play the theoretical 100-plus percent games.
Yes, as silly as it sounds, these people come right out and say I
can win with a game that's 100.0001%, but play a game at 99.9999%
and it's a certain loser! Have you ever heard anything more
hilarious? And these people like to be known for their mathematical
prowess??

One of the key areas of my play strategy is that I am not
exceedingly picky as to what the game EV is. Since I usually play at
the more luxurious resorts, rarely will I find anything even near
100 percent.

But my strategy calls for me to play, if and after 100 credits are
lost on either 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker, games in this order of
availability wherever I sit down to play: 10/7 Double Bonus, 10/6
Double Double Bonus, Super Double Bonus, Triple Bonus Poker +, and
Super Aces. Searching the floor is not a part of my strategy. Being
comfortable without neurotically scoping the place out is.

Because there are very few games available anywhere these days in
the $5 denomination and higher that are slightly positive, the
average EV of all my play over my first 251 professional sessions is
highly negative. But that's EV and not reality. No math model was
ever developed that took on the short-term expectation. After
playing 251 sessions, I find reality a very healthy friend.

But not everyone thinks that way. I occasionally get challenged to
different type of bets, and after some disagreements they all seem
to fizzle. Recently, however, a member of one of the video poker
Internet forums offered me one such challenge. As is typical among
those who criticize me, this person uses one of many aliases – Cogno
Scienti – and has asked me not to print his true name (gee, I wonder
why THAT was).

Cogno has been dogging me for quite a while, saying (what else is
new?) I could not possibly win with my play strategy. To his credit,
this person has a keen knowledge of what I do and how I do it, as he
has read my site many times over. It is obvious he is intrigued by
my approach, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he has purchased
either or both of my books under yet another name.

So when he out of nowhere came to me and offered several bets, I
wasn't as much surprised at the gesture, but perplexed by his
wording. In the first challenge he said, "Rob, you play one session,
playing exclusively negative games. You must allow a mutually-
acceptable referee to hold the money and observe you play. Bring
your starting bankroll of $17,200 and another $17,200 to give to the
referee. If you win at least $2,500, I'll give you another $2,500.
If you lose your whole $17,200 or chicken out before you meet your
win goal, you give me the $17,200."

Say what? He wants 7-1 odds? Okay, so he flipped his lid on that one.

But then he came up with an even bigger doozie as follows: "Rob,
tell you what, though. I'll bet you $17,200 even money that you
won't win $2,500 before you lose the $17,200 playing your system on
negative games, provided you also bet me even money for $17,200 that
I can't get at least one heads if I flip a coin 10 times. Deal?"

Hmmmm… What is wrong with this guy? He knows my strategy calls for a
$57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of $2,500, and he wants me to do
it HOW? And then the coin flip … you see why I always state that
these critics are coming out of the walls?

But it didn't end there. This genius went on to say in his final off-
the-wall offer, "Rob, tell you what. Here's a bet for you: $250,000
that you'll lose money over the next 50 sessions of your system,
played exclusively on games with optimal payback less than 99.2%."

At first I thought this was a legitimate offer, but given this
critic's track record I re-read it several times. Then I found his
usual escape clause. He first tells me that he wants me to play my
strategy. Then he inserts an alteration to it by saying I must play
games only at or below 99.2%. Now, he knows what games my strategy
calls for and in what order. Why the modification? And then when I
came back and said I would take the bet only if it's agreed that I
play only my strategy, he ran. Not only that, he needed the
supporting comfort of half a dozen others who were feeling sorry for
him after the whole fiasco.

I've come to understand that all these bets that have been offered
me are done so out of extreme envy by those who just cannot find a
way to beat the video poker computers with their optimal play
strategy cards. So I've been able to accomplish what they haven't
been able to by developing my own particular way of playing. Big
deal. Jealousy is a part of life--even those who have allowed
gambling to control their struggling existences. Get over it guys.
When will you ever learn.......

#2

I would hardly consider it jealously correcting your spelling. You
are such a liar, such a piece of shit. If anybody wanted to read
your free trash, they would. Posting your ill-founded strategy on
this forum is no better than spamming. I think that we have rules
against that, huh, Harry?? Kiss my ass, cheese-whiz.
John Emrich
Seattle, Washington

....and little dicky's wedgie gets tighter all the time!

While you guys were arguing and John 'the chicken' 3-to-the-royal
was privately showing me how jealous he is of me--I was busy

getting

the last laugh!I wouldn't expect anyone to take me up on my offer

to

play 50 verifiable sessions---I'd say you idiots finally got it.

So

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

while I have the time during the move to tic tic tic off littly
dicky some more and show Congo he's a coward with no recorse, I'll
treat you all to a dose of THE TRUTH from this week's GT:

ENJOY, FOOLS!!!

The Undeniable Truth
Yes, 99% can win!
When common sense trumps math models

-------------------------------------------------------------------

--

-----------

October 18, 2005 - by Rob Singer

Over the years it's been my play strategy against theirs – simple
common sense vs. math models, probability theories and geek-like
thinking. When I came out with my tested and very successful play
strategy prior to the release of "The Undeniable Truth," the so-
called experts said I was a loser, liar and a fraud, and that I
couldn't possibly win with a strategy that utilizes mostly

negative

(expected value) EV games.

Many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of profiting

later,

I continue to prove them wrong. Those who said I'd be gone in 60
seconds are now eating their words. Those who proclaimed I'd be
nothing more than another scam artist are finally facing up to
reality. And those who just won't hear of another play strategy

that

can beat the casinos rather than wasting time trying to outsmart

the

video poker computersas, DUH! ADVANTAGE PLAYERS, continue to

squirm.

Yes, they have made their own beds, and now it's time to try to
sleep in-between the nightmares they and no one else has created.

As soon as I inform everyone that my web site allows anyone access
to my play strategies at no charge, the critics then peel down the
onion even further in what is always a futile effort to find a way
to discredit how I play. Although they see this as a very

refreshing

change to reading the same theoretical nonsense over and over

again

and being hounded to buying useless video poker trinkets, just as
with ANY promotion-chasing/advantage-playing addict in denial,

they

WANT their theories to be true at any cost.

The latest mantra is the intonation that it is impossible for me

to

win unless I were to play the theoretical 100-plus percent games.
Yes, as silly as it sounds, these people come right out and say I
can win with a game that's 100.0001%, but play a game at 99.9999%
and it's a certain loser! Have you ever heard anything more
hilarious? And these people like to be known for their

mathematical

prowess??

One of the key areas of my play strategy is that I am not
exceedingly picky as to what the game EV is. Since I usually play

at

the more luxurious resorts, rarely will I find anything even near
100 percent.

But my strategy calls for me to play, if and after 100 credits are
lost on either 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker, games in this order of
availability wherever I sit down to play: 10/7 Double Bonus, 10/6
Double Double Bonus, Super Double Bonus, Triple Bonus Poker +, and
Super Aces. Searching the floor is not a part of my strategy.

Being

comfortable without neurotically scoping the place out is.

Because there are very few games available anywhere these days in
the $5 denomination and higher that are slightly positive, the
average EV of all my play over my first 251 professional sessions

is

highly negative. But that's EV and not reality. No math model was
ever developed that took on the short-term expectation. After
playing 251 sessions, I find reality a very healthy friend.

But not everyone thinks that way. I occasionally get challenged to
different type of bets, and after some disagreements they all seem
to fizzle. Recently, however, a member of one of the video poker
Internet forums offered me one such challenge. As is typical among
those who criticize me, this person uses one of many aliases –

Cogno

Scienti – and has asked me not to print his true name (gee, I

wonder

why THAT was).

Cogno has been dogging me for quite a while, saying (what else is
new?) I could not possibly win with my play strategy. To his

credit,

this person has a keen knowledge of what I do and how I do it, as

he

has read my site many times over. It is obvious he is intrigued by
my approach, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he has

purchased

either or both of my books under yet another name.

So when he out of nowhere came to me and offered several bets, I
wasn't as much surprised at the gesture, but perplexed by his
wording. In the first challenge he said, "Rob, you play one

session,

playing exclusively negative games. You must allow a mutually-
acceptable referee to hold the money and observe you play. Bring
your starting bankroll of $17,200 and another $17,200 to give to

the

referee. If you win at least $2,500, I'll give you another $2,500.
If you lose your whole $17,200 or chicken out before you meet your
win goal, you give me the $17,200."

Say what? He wants 7-1 odds? Okay, so he flipped his lid on that

one.

But then he came up with an even bigger doozie as follows: "Rob,
tell you what, though. I'll bet you $17,200 even money that you
won't win $2,500 before you lose the $17,200 playing your system

on

negative games, provided you also bet me even money for $17,200

that

I can't get at least one heads if I flip a coin 10 times. Deal?"

Hmmmm… What is wrong with this guy? He knows my strategy calls for

a

$57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of $2,500, and he wants me to do
it HOW? And then the coin flip … you see why I always state that
these critics are coming out of the walls?

But it didn't end there. This genius went on to say in his final

off-

the-wall offer, "Rob, tell you what. Here's a bet for you:

$250,000

that you'll lose money over the next 50 sessions of your system,
played exclusively on games with optimal payback less than 99.2%."

At first I thought this was a legitimate offer, but given this
critic's track record I re-read it several times. Then I found his
usual escape clause. He first tells me that he wants me to play my
strategy. Then he inserts an alteration to it by saying I must

play

games only at or below 99.2%. Now, he knows what games my strategy
calls for and in what order. Why the modification? And then when I
came back and said I would take the bet only if it's agreed that I
play only my strategy, he ran. Not only that, he needed the
supporting comfort of half a dozen others who were feeling sorry

for

him after the whole fiasco.

I've come to understand that all these bets that have been offered
me are done so out of extreme envy by those who just cannot find a
way to beat the video poker computers with their optimal play
strategy cards. So I've been able to accomplish what they haven't
been able to by developing my own particular way of playing. Big
deal. Jealousy is a part of life--even those who have allowed
gambling to control their struggling existences. Get over it guys.
When will you ever learn.......

#3

....and little dicky's wedgie gets tighter all the time!

While you guys were arguing and John 'the chicken' 3-to-the-royal
was privately showing me how jealous he is of me--I was busy

getting

the last laugh!I wouldn't expect anyone to take me up on my offer

to

play 50 verifiable sessions

Lie. It wasn't your offer, it was Cognos and you backed down. Proving
once again that your are a liar and won't put up any verifiable money
to back up your assertions.

---I'd say you idiots finally got it. So
while I have the time during the move to tic tic tic off littly
dicky some more and show Congo he's a coward with no recorse, I'll
treat you all to a dose of THE TRUTH from this week's GT:

Let's see just how much truth is REALLY there ...

ENJOY, FOOLS!!!

The Undeniable Truth
Yes, 99% can win!
When common sense trumps math models

Lie #1. Common sense has nothing to do with math models. The math is
either true or false. There is no middle ground. Common sense is
usually applied to esoteric circumstances where differing opinions
abound. Your statement is akin to saying 1+1 = 3.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-

-----------

October 18, 2005 - by Rob Singer

Over the years it's been my play strategy against theirs

Lie #2. No one that I know of has played AGAINST you.

– simple
common sense vs. math models, probability theories and geek-like
thinking. When I came out with my tested and very successful play
strategy prior to the release of "The Undeniable Truth," the so-
called experts said I was a loser, liar and a fraud, and that I
couldn't possibly win with a strategy that utilizes mostly negative
(expected value) EV games.

So far, you've never proven that you have won and you've backed down
every time someone gives you a chance back up your words. The only
logical conclusion (common sense) anyone could reach is that you must
be lieing.

Many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of profiting later,
I continue to prove them wrong.

Lie #3. You haven't provided any PROOF.

Those who said I'd be gone in 60
seconds are now eating their words. Those who proclaimed I'd be
nothing more than another scam artist are finally facing up to
reality.

That you ARE a scammer ... a poor mans Kevin Trudeau.

And those who just won't hear of another play strategy that
can beat the casinos

Lie #4. There are no other play strategies that can beat the casinos.
By a strategy, I mean any approach that will casue the vast majority
of those who use it to be successful.

rather than wasting time trying to outsmart the
video poker computersas, DUH! ADVANTAGE PLAYERS, continue to

squirm.

Yes, they have made their own beds, and now it's time to try to
sleep in-between the nightmares they and no one else has created.

As soon as I inform everyone that my web site allows anyone access
to my play strategies at no charge, the critics then peel down the
onion even further in what is always a futile effort to find a way
to discredit how I play.

Lie #5. You've already been discredited many times.

Although they see this as a very refreshing
change to reading the same theoretical nonsense over and over again
and being hounded to buying useless video poker trinkets, just as
with ANY promotion-chasing/advantage-playing addict in denial, they
WANT their theories to be true at any cost.

Lie #6. The "theories" used by advantage players are true, just as
true as 1+1=2. It's simple math that everyone accepts ... except one
person with ulterior motives. That is, to perpetrate his scam.

The latest mantra is the intonation that it is impossible for me to
win unless I were to play the theoretical 100-plus percent games.

Lie #7. No one has ever said it is impossible to win on negative
games. Lottery winners do it every week.

Yes, as silly as it sounds, these people come right out and say I
can win with a game that's 100.0001%, but play a game at 99.9999%
and it's a certain loser!

Lie #8. No one has ever said any such thing. Only a scammer would
make such an obviously irrational statement.

Have you ever heard anything more
hilarious? And these people like to be known for their mathematical
prowess??

One of the key areas of my play strategy is that I am not
exceedingly picky as to what the game EV is. Since I usually play

at

the more luxurious resorts, rarely will I find anything even near
100 percent.

But my strategy calls for me to play, if and after 100 credits are
lost on either 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker, games in this order of
availability wherever I sit down to play: 10/7 Double Bonus, 10/6
Double Double Bonus, Super Double Bonus, Triple Bonus Poker +, and
Super Aces. Searching the floor is not a part of my strategy. Being
comfortable without neurotically scoping the place out is.

Because there are very few games available anywhere these days in
the $5 denomination and higher that are slightly positive, the
average EV of all my play over my first 251 professional sessions

is

highly negative. But that's EV and not reality.

Then why don't you play 6-5 DB? Either EV makes a difference or it
doesn't. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same
time.

No math model was
ever developed that took on the short-term expectation.

Lie #8. Math models don't care whether a session is short or long or
in between. The math is the same, the results are different based on
the size of the sample (number of hands).

After
playing 251 sessions, I find reality a very healthy friend.

Just like anyone perpetrating a scam. However, when are you ever
going to back up your words with actions?

But not everyone thinks that way. I occasionally get challenged to
different type of bets, and after some disagreements they all seem
to fizzle.

What else is going to happen after you back out?

Recently, however, a member of one of the video poker
Internet forums offered me one such challenge. As is typical among
those who criticize me, this person uses one of many aliases –

Cogno

Scienti – and has asked me not to print his true name (gee, I

wonder

why THAT was).

You have always avoided using your own real name? I wonder why that
is ...

Cogno has been dogging me for quite a while, saying (what else is
new?) I could not possibly win with my play strategy. To his

credit,

this person has a keen knowledge of what I do and how I do it, as

he

has read my site many times over.

Lie #9. It would only take once.

It is obvious he is intrigued by
my approach,

Lie #10. Your approach is obviously a scam and he asked you to back
up your words with action. That's when you backed out.

and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he has purchased
either or both of my books under yet another name.

So when he out of nowhere came to me and offered several bets, I
wasn't as much surprised at the gesture, but perplexed by his
wording. In the first challenge he said, "Rob, you play one

session,

playing exclusively negative games. You must allow a mutually-
acceptable referee to hold the money and observe you play. Bring
your starting bankroll of $17,200 and another $17,200 to give to

the

referee. If you win at least $2,500, I'll give you another $2,500.
If you lose your whole $17,200 or chicken out before you meet your
win goal, you give me the $17,200."

Say what? He wants 7-1 odds? Okay, so he flipped his lid on that

one.

Lie #11. It is NOT 7-1 odds. It's very close to even money when bet
against a progressive system. YOU are the one who claims to win 87%
of the time (which works out to 7.7-1). If this were true YOU would
have the advantage and, guess what, you backed out anyway.

But then he came up with an even bigger doozie as follows: "Rob,
tell you what, though. I'll bet you $17,200 even money that you
won't win $2,500 before you lose the $17,200 playing your system on
negative games, provided you also bet me even money for $17,200

that

I can't get at least one heads if I flip a coin 10 times. Deal?"

Hmmmm… What is wrong with this guy? He knows my strategy calls for

a

$57,200 bankroll to win a minimum of $2,500, and he wants me to do
it HOW? And then the coin flip … you see why I always state that
these critics are coming out of the walls?

But it didn't end there. This genius went on to say in his final

off-

the-wall offer, "Rob, tell you what. Here's a bet for you: $250,000
that you'll lose money over the next 50 sessions of your system,
played exclusively on games with optimal payback less than 99.2%."

At first I thought this was a legitimate offer, but given this
critic's track record I re-read it several times. Then I found his
usual escape clause. He first tells me that he wants me to play my
strategy. Then he inserts an alteration to it by saying I must play
games only at or below 99.2%. Now, he knows what games my strategy
calls for and in what order. Why the modification?

Simple. The only real problem with any strategy is if it promotes
playing negative games. You have stated many times that the payback
doesn't matter. This was another chance for you to back up your words
with actions (the very same words you used many times earlier in this
article) and you backed out again.

And then when I
came back and said I would take the bet only if it's agreed that I
play only my strategy, he ran.

He already knows that playing positive games is the only reasonable
approach. All you did is prove his point.

Not only that, he needed the
supporting comfort of half a dozen others who were feeling sorry

for

him after the whole fiasco.

Now, tell us about your bankruptcy. Have you ever mentioned that in
any of your articles?

I've come to understand that all these bets that have been offered
me are done so out of extreme envy by those who just cannot find a
way to beat the video poker computers with their optimal play
strategy cards. So I've been able to accomplish what they haven't
been able to by developing my own particular way of playing. Big
deal. Jealousy is a part of life--even those who have allowed
gambling to control their struggling existences. Get over it guys.
When will you ever learn.......

Lie #12. I personally win using AP methodology as do thousands of
others.

#4

I wouldn't expect anyone to take me up on my offer

to play 50 verifiable sessions

Lie. It wasn't your offer, it was Cognos and you backed down.

Proving once again that your are a liar and won't put up any
verifiable money to back up your assertions.

I see you're still crying over the fact that I ALWAYS get the last
laugh--and with you it isn't all that difficult--but I kinda don't
think anyone cares about your anal response here with all its usual
twists and turns like "but gee Rob, no one EVER said that you can't
win on 99,9999% games and that you'll win on 100.0001% games and it's
ridiculous"....in order to create a feeling of confidence for
insignificants like you out there. You say that nonsense all the time
when it comes to my overall record and not one simple session. All
90,000 people now know is that whenever fools like you & Congo offer
your make-believe bets, you can't do it without escape clauses so you
don't really HAVE to go through with them. I put out a challenge to
ANYONE who is brave enough to bet me that I wouldn't be ahead after
50 sessions of my play strategy (get it?--MY play strategy and not
one of Congo's stretched imagination negative-game concoctions or
stupid coin-flips that you nerds like to drool over), and not even
you are man enough to go for it. Obviously, you bozos fear my
strategy and don't truly understand it. But then again, what could
one expect from a one-track-minded man-geek who has wrecked his
wife's life by turning her into the well-groomed gambling addict that
he is....and then steps up to the plate and bashes her over the head
by blaming HER for his problems. Yes, what a man! Now the two of you
are destined for a life of video poker inside smokey, smelly casinos
after being roped in to reside in LV by any casino manager who's had
the pleasure of taking your money in the past, Internet chattting
when things aren't quite going so good, and nothing but geeky
memories of smelling each other's farts while locked up with other
statictics geeks---with no discernible future other than casinos.
WOW! Sorta makes you wanna wet your pants, doesn't it little dicky???
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

···

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

#5

...
Obviously, you bozos fear my strategy and don't truly
understand it. But then again, what could one expect
from a one-track-minded man-geek who has wrecked his
wife's life by turning her into the well-groomed
gambling addict that he is....and then steps up to
the plate and bashes her over the head by blaming HER
for his problems. Yes, what a man! Now the two of you
are destined for a life of video poker inside smokey,
smelly casinos ......

I can't imagine any rational human being wanting
to try and learn anything from someone who could
write posts like these. Do you think that these
posts will sway anyone? Ironically, you are
acheiving these folks ends for them.

#6

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

wrote:

I wouldn't expect anyone to take me up on my offer
> to play 50 verifiable sessions
>
> Lie. It wasn't your offer, it was Cognos and you backed down.
Proving once again that your are a liar and won't put up any
verifiable money to back up your assertions.

I see you're still crying over the fact that I ALWAYS get the last
laugh--and with you it isn't all that difficult--but I kinda don't
think anyone cares about your anal response here with all its usual
twists and turns like "but gee Rob, no one EVER said that you can't
win on 99,9999% games and that you'll win on 100.0001% games and

it's

ridiculous"

I see you're still having problems understanding simple math. Of
course, these type of responses are required to perpetrate your scam.

....in order to create a feeling of confidence for
insignificants like you out there. You say that nonsense all the

time

when it comes to my overall record and not one simple session. All
90,000 people now know is that whenever fools like you & Congo

offer

your make-believe bets, you can't do it without escape clauses so

you

don't really HAVE to go through with them. I put out a challenge to
ANYONE who is brave enough to bet me that I wouldn't be ahead after
50 sessions of my play strategy (get it?--MY play strategy and not
one of Congo's stretched imagination negative-game concoctions or
stupid coin-flips that you nerds like to drool over), and not even
you are man enough to go for it.

And everyone now knows that you WON'T play your strategy on negative
games liked you've claimed hundreds of times. That is all that I
needed to hear. It's so nice for you to admit to everyone that you've
been lieing all along.

Obviously, you bozos fear my
strategy and don't truly understand it. But then again, what could
one expect from a one-track-minded man-geek who has wrecked his
wife's life by turning her into the well-groomed gambling addict

that

he is....and then steps up to the plate and bashes her over the

head

by blaming HER for his problems. Yes, what a man! Now the two of

you

are destined for a life of video poker inside smokey, smelly

casinos

after being roped in to reside in LV by any casino manager who's

had

the pleasure of taking your money in the past, Internet chattting
when things aren't quite going so good, and nothing but geeky
memories of smelling each other's farts while locked up with other
statictics geeks---with no discernible future other than casinos.
WOW! Sorta makes you wanna wet your pants, doesn't it little

dicky???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Thank you for making everyone reading this forum see EXACTLY how you
think. You must have been hitting the booze quite heavily when you
wrote this, otherwise you would have noticed that only someone with a
3rd grade mentality would actually post it on the internet. LMAO.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#7

These posts are directed at the looney toon who calls himself little dicky. It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it were not for someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this might also do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some sort of expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here or anywhere else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for me as well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-wannabee like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.

worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:> ...

Obviously, you bozos fear my strategy and don't truly
understand it. But then again, what could one expect
from a one-track-minded man-geek who has wrecked his
wife's life by turning her into the well-groomed
gambling addict that he is....and then steps up to
the plate and bashes her over the head by blaming HER
for his problems. Yes, what a man! Now the two of you
are destined for a life of video poker inside smokey,
smelly casinos ......

I can't imagine any rational human being wanting
to try and learn anything from someone who could
write posts like these. Do you think that these
posts will sway anyone? Ironically, you are
acheiving these folks ends for them.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

SPONSORED LINKS
Gambling Online gambling Outdoor recreation Recreation software Peer pressure

···

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "FREEvpFREE" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

#8

And everyone now knows that you WON'T play your strategy on negative
games liked you've claimed hundreds of times. That is all that I
needed to hear. It's so nice for you to admit to everyone that you've
been lieing all along.

Hello McFly?? Anyone home bozo??? Oh Mr. bigtime vp expert who trolls the Internet boards playing make believe, please educate us as to just where the positive $5, $10, $25 & $100 machines are, and where they've been in LV all this time.

Since my next response hit you hard, I'll let you recover awhile and maybe you can think about an answer to what I said above.

···

rgmustain <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

#9

These posts are directed at the looney toon who calls himself little

dicky.

Never called myself that in my life.

It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it were not for

someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this might also
do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some sort of
expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all
comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here or anywhere
else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for me as
well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-wannabee
like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.

Sounds like I must have hit a nerve. Good. It's nice to see Robbie
squirming again. Now, if you have something intelligent let's hear it.
Otherwise your idiotic name calling is just a relection on yourself.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Aces High <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#10

rgmustain <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
And everyone now knows that you WON'T play your strategy on

negative

games liked you've claimed hundreds of times. That is all that I
needed to hear. It's so nice for you to admit to everyone that

you've

been lieing all along.

Hello McFly?? Anyone home bozo??? Oh Mr. bigtime vp expert who

trolls the Internet boards playing make believe, please educate us as
to just where the positive $5, $10, $25 & $100 machines are, and
where they've been in LV all this time. >

I'm just following up on your failure to accept the bet as Cogno
offered. Keep squirming ... I love it.

Since my next response hit you hard, I'll let you recover awhile

and maybe you can think about an answer to what I said above. >

LMAO. What this really means is Robbie has no comeback to the fact
that he backed out on a bet where he would be obligated to play
negative machines. The very machines he has claimed over and over
again to use with his system. He's been cornered and is now trying to
hide his humiliation with insults and assertions. Sorry, monkey boy,
you've been fired.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Aces High <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#11

> These posts are directed at the looney toon who calls himself

little dicky.

Never called myself that in my life.

Even when you don't....you do.

> It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it were not

for

someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this might

also

do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some sort

of

expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all
comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here or

anywhere

else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for me as
well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-

wannabee

like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.

Sounds like I must have hit a nerve. Good. It's nice to see Robbie
squirming again. Now, if you have something intelligent let's hear

it. Otherwise your idiotic name calling is just a relection on
yourself.

Um, I think that part of your confidence-building got tagged long ago
little dicky. All I see from your quasi-post is the same ol' addict
in denial. Name calling? Hardly. The truth really stings at times,
does it not....

···

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

#12

> Hello McFly?? Anyone home bozo??? Oh Mr. bigtime vp expert who
trolls the Internet boards playing make believe, please educate us

as

to just where the positive $5, $10, $25 & $100 machines are, and
where they've been in LV all this time. >

I'm just following up on your failure to accept the bet as Cogno
offered. Keep squirming ... I love it.

More of "I'm just"?? How about "just trying to set the record
straight" whenever I give you a good slap you can't recover from???
The bet "as Congo offered"? How about YOU or even that clown
accepting a bet as I've offered--with the strategy you've been
criticizing since your jealous streak of me began? Hey hey hey! How
about it, big boy??

> Since my next response hit you hard, I'll let you recover awhile
and maybe you can think about an answer to what I said above. >

LMAO. What this really means is Robbie has no comeback to the fact
that he backed out on a bet where he would be obligated to play
negative machines. The very machines he has claimed over and over
again to use with his system. He's been cornered and is now trying

to hide his humiliation with insults and assertions. Sorry, monkey
boy, you've been fired.

As some sort of self-proclaimed expert who desperately needs others
to look up to him because he may have had a patent from his geek days
with other fart-smelling nerds locked up in a small room all day with
little ventilation for maximum effect.....have you ever read my play
strategy? Where do you see I play "only negative games"? Now don't
get nervous or say something stupid again like "but gee Rob, we're
allowed to change your strategy for our bet offerings, and if you
don't like it we can say you backed out"!! Let's see some of that IBM
logic this time, and not some problem gambler ramble. HAHAHAHA!!! How
ya gonna squirm and twist your way out of this pickle, little dicky??

···

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

#13

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

wrote:

> > These posts are directed at the looney toon who calls himself
little dicky.
>
> Never called myself that in my life.

Even when you don't....you do.

Nope. You're always wrong. You could be in a Fedex commercial.

> > It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it were

not

for
> someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this

might

also
> do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some sort
of
> expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all
> comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here or
anywhere
> else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for me

as

> well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-
wannabee
> like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.

> Sounds like I must have hit a nerve. Good. It's nice to see

Robbie

> squirming again. Now, if you have something intelligent let's

hear

it. Otherwise your idiotic name calling is just a relection on
yourself.

Um, I think that part of your confidence-building got tagged long

ago

little dicky. All I see from your quasi-post is the same ol' addict
in denial. Name calling? Hardly. The truth really stings at times,
does it not....

It's been obvious for a long time that the you and the truth are
complete strangers. Your replies here just cement that particular
truth. So, when are you going to come clean on that bankruptcy. Was
that before or after your prison term?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#14

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

wrote:

> > Hello McFly?? Anyone home bozo??? Oh Mr. bigtime vp expert who
> trolls the Internet boards playing make believe, please educate

us

as
> to just where the positive $5, $10, $25 & $100 machines are, and
> where they've been in LV all this time. >
>
> I'm just following up on your failure to accept the bet as Cogno
> offered. Keep squirming ... I love it.

More of "I'm just"?? How about "just trying to set the record
straight" whenever I give you a good slap you can't recover from???

Hmmm. I seemed to have recovered just fine and lovin' every minute of
it. Seeing you squirm each and every time you reply is a wonderful
thing.

The bet "as Congo offered"? How about YOU or even that clown
accepting a bet as I've offered--with the strategy you've been
criticizing since your jealous streak of me began? Hey hey hey!

How

about it, big boy??

How about it? Are you ready to accept Cognos' bet? Or, will you run
and cry "but, but, but ... " one more time. Keep squirming monkey
boy. You are looking more foolish every minute.

The bet was simple. You play YOUR system on negative machines as
you've stated hundreds of times. We already know that any system will
work fine on positive machines, so there's no debate about that. "How
about it, big boy??"

>
> > Since my next response hit you hard, I'll let you recover

awhile

> and maybe you can think about an answer to what I said above. >
>
> LMAO. What this really means is Robbie has no comeback to the

fact

> that he backed out on a bet where he would be obligated to play
> negative machines. The very machines he has claimed over and over
> again to use with his system. He's been cornered and is now

trying

to hide his humiliation with insults and assertions. Sorry, monkey
boy, you've been fired.

As some sort of self-proclaimed expert who desperately needs others
to look up to him because he may have had a patent from his geek

days

with other fart-smelling nerds locked up in a small room all day

with

little ventilation for maximum effect.....have you ever read my

play

strategy?

Have you lost it completely? I've already aanswered this question
several times. NO NO NO NO NO NO. Your system means nothing. No
system can change the expectation of the machines being played. You
play on a negative expectation machine, then you will increase your
chances of losing. Play on a positive expectation machine you will
increase your chances of winning. Every hand is independent and no
system can change the overall expectation determined by the machine
pay table. ANY SYSTEM that claims otherwise is a FRAUD.

Where do you see I play "only negative games"?

You've claimed many times that it doesn't matter whether the machines
are positive or negative. If you now want to change that claim then I
will have proved my point.

Now don't
get nervous or say something stupid again like "but gee Rob, we're
allowed to change your strategy for our bet offerings, and if you
don't like it we can say you backed out"!!

I don't care about your strategy. It's a meaningless Martingale mumbo
jumbo. The only, and I repeat ONLY, thing I care about is the
expectation of the game.

Let's see some of that IBM
logic this time, and not some problem gambler ramble. HAHAHAHA!!!

How

ya gonna squirm and twist your way out of this pickle, little

dicky??

Nope. I've stated the facts. Do you still claim that it doesn't
matter whether a machine is positive or negative?

Note: The BS will start flying now ...

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#15

If this whole message thread were taken to private email, would anyone miss it?

    ...what a waste of emails.

Fred*

···

-----Original Message-----
From: rgmustain <rgmustain@att.net>
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:51:35 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Robs' Humiliation continues.....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

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

wrote:

> > Hello McFly?? Anyone home bozo??? Oh Mr. bigtime vp expert who
> trolls the Internet boards playing make believe, please educate

us

as
> to just where the positive $5, $10, $25 & $100 machines are, and
> where they've been in LV all this time. >
>
> I'm just following up on your failure to accept the bet as Cogno
> offered. Keep squirming ... I love it.

More of "I'm just"?? How about "just trying to set the record
straight" whenever I give you a good slap you can't recover from???

Hmmm. I seemed to have recovered just fine and lovin' every minute of
it. Seeing you squirm each and every time you reply is a wonderful
thing.

The bet "as Congo offered"? How about YOU or even that clown
accepting a bet as I've offered--with the strategy you've been
criticizing since your jealous streak of me began? Hey hey hey!

How

about it, big boy??

How about it? Are you ready to accept Cognos' bet? Or, will you run
and cry "but, but, but ... " one more time. Keep squirming monkey
boy. You are looking more foolish every minute.

The bet was simple. You play YOUR system on negative machines as
you've stated hundreds of times. We already know that any system will
work fine on positive machines, so there's no debate about that. "How
about it, big boy??"

>
> > Since my next response hit you hard, I'll let you recover

awhile

> and maybe you can think about an answer to what I said above. >
>
> LMAO. What this really means is Robbie has no comeback to the

fact

> that he backed out on a bet where he would be obligated to play
> negative machines. The very machines he has claimed over and over
> again to use with his system. He's been cornered and is now

trying

to hide his humiliation with insults and assertions. Sorry, monkey
boy, you've been fired.

As some sort of self-proclaimed expert who desperately needs others
to look up to him because he may have had a patent from his geek

days

with other fart-smelling nerds locked up in a small room all day

with

little ventilation for maximum effect.....have you ever read my

play

strategy?

Have you lost it completely? I've already aanswered this question
several times. NO NO NO NO NO NO. Your system means nothing. No
system can change the expectation of the machines being played. You
play on a negative expectation machine, then you will increase your
chances of losing. Play on a positive expectation machine you will
increase your chances of winning. Every hand is independent and no
system can change the overall expectation determined by the machine
pay table. ANY SYSTEM that claims otherwise is a FRAUD.

Where do you see I play "only negative games"?

You've claimed many times that it doesn't matter whether the machines
are positive or negative. If you now want to change that claim then I
will have proved my point.

Now don't
get nervous or say something stupid again like "but gee Rob, we're
allowed to change your strategy for our bet offerings, and if you
don't like it we can say you backed out"!!

I don't care about your strategy. It's a meaningless Martingale mumbo
jumbo. The only, and I repeat ONLY, thing I care about is the
expectation of the game.

Let's see some of that IBM
logic this time, and not some problem gambler ramble. HAHAHAHA!!!

How

ya gonna squirm and twist your way out of this pickle, little

dicky??

Nope. I've stated the facts. Do you still claim that it doesn't
matter whether a machine is positive or negative?

Note: The BS will start flying now ...

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#16

Nope. You're always wrong. You could be in a Fedex commercial.

You're favorite--DENIAL. Did you ever wonder how foolish you sound
when you deny everything---even to yourself. I know you have very
little respect for yourself, but even YOU have got to be able to see
that one!

>
> > > It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it were
not
> for
> > someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this
might
> also
> > do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some

sort

> of
> > expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all
> > comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here or
> anywhere
> > else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for

me

as
> > well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-
> wannabee
> > like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.
>
> > Sounds like I must have hit a nerve. Good. It's nice to see
Robbie
> > squirming again. Now, if you have something intelligent let's
hear
> it. Otherwise your idiotic name calling is just a relection on
> yourself.
>
> Um, I think that part of your confidence-building got tagged long
ago
> little dicky. All I see from your quasi-post is the same ol'

addict

> in denial. Name calling? Hardly. The truth really stings at

times,

> does it not....

It's been obvious for a long time that the you and the truth are
complete strangers. Your replies here just cement that particular
truth. So, when are you going to come clean on that bankruptcy. Was
that before or after your prison term?

Wiggle-waggling again I see. How about you come clean on exactly how
you've been mistreating your wife, and how it began with your giving
her a geek-administered beating?

···

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

#17

> More of "I'm just"?? How about "just trying to set the record
> straight" whenever I give you a good slap you can't recover

from???

Hmmm. I seemed to have recovered just fine and lovin' every minute

of it. Seeing you squirm each and every time you reply is a wonderful

thing.

Now you admit you get a good slap now and then. Then you say
you've 'recovered just fine'. HAHA! I don't think so. The first thing
you need to do is learn how to stay out of the casinos every day.
then try eliminating gambling from every waking day and from every
plan in your life. Then try not denying everything you see me say
about you. Even a statistical nerd like yourself will come to realize
how much enjoyment you can get out of life when you control it rather
than letting the casino managers and all their rope-'em-in promotions
control you.....day after day after day.

> The bet "as Congo offered"? How about YOU or even that clown
> accepting a bet as I've offered--with the strategy you've been
> criticizing since your jealous streak of me began? Hey hey hey!
How about it, big boy??

How about it? Are you ready to accept Cognos' bet? Or, will you run
and cry "but, but, but ... " one more time. Keep squirming monkey
boy. You are looking more foolish every minute.

I'll leave it in there again. It's obvious you have no answers other
than to bring up the same old tired response of the famous escape
used by you and he.

The bet was simple. You play YOUR system on negative machines as
you've stated hundreds of times. We already know that any system

will work fine on positive machines, so there's no debate about
that. "How about it, big boy??"

First, show us where I state my strategy is played only on negative
machines. I'll give you the $350k if you can find it anywhere let's
say...4 times---let alone "hundreds of times". Then to show you're
not terrified of me and that I'm not dealing with a sissified geek,
you give me the cash if you don't find it! Here's a hint: Look at the
strategy on my site first before you stick that foot in your mouth
yet again. Pretty good odds, Mr. statistical nerd, right? Out
of "hundreds of times, just show me FOUR! Let's have it logic freak!
Do what your type of moron has always done. Get the FACTS!!! I
promise not to laugh in your face or pull your pants down in front of
the girls. Somebody STOP ME!!!!!!!

>
> Where do you see I play "only negative games"?

You've claimed many times that it doesn't matter whether the

machines are positive or negative. If you now want to change that
claim then I will have proved my point.

Let me clear the obvious confusion from your thick head. In order for
you to comprehend how I play, you first must acknowledge that my
strategy says first to play the best pay tables available where one
sits to play. If that includes pos. games then that's what's played.
You, as a self-proclaimed 'expert' should accept that there are few
positive games available above dollars. But there are some. I've
stated over and over that MOST of my play is on negative games, and
that I've won and continue to win regardless--because of my strategy
and the games I play--some of which are positive at the lower end. I
can easily win on any game below 100%, but your pal Congo for some
odd reason REQUIRED that I play ONLY <99.3% for 50 sessions, and
that's not how I play. Why spend all that time criticizing my
strategy, criticizing my win record, and saying I'm lying about my
overall results AND THEN not require me to play the system that you
dufuses criticize? At the end of the day that proves nothing either
way. Don't you realize all you're doing is looking like you're afraid
I just might be telling the truth by putting in your special
stipulation/escape clause that you know I'd never accept since I've
never once played that way? That's the leading comment I've been
getting from GT readers over the past week, and they're absolutely
right. You guys fear that which you do not understand, so you have to
change it in order to be at a certain comfort level.

Do you still claim that it doesn't

matter whether a machine is positive or negative?

In any one session, it does not matter if the game is 98% or 102%.
You can win just as easily as you can lose. Happens all the time
every day to millions of players. The problem arises when people have
no win goals, and after they hit they think they can keep on hitting
winners, and they give it all back and more. That's the curse of so-
called 'advantage players'. They have no comprehension of when to
quit or why, and part of that disease is controlled by their sacred
points accumulation. Being ahead $1000 on a 25c game means nothing.
Even if they go home $200 behind after being that far ahead, they
talk themselves into being 'happy' about such a fiasco because
they 'earned' $17/hour in phantom bucks for their 11 hours of effort.
It's almost beyond belief how you people twist the logic.

···

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

#18

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

wrote:

> Nope. You're always wrong. You could be in a Fedex commercial.

You're favorite--DENIAL. Did you ever wonder how foolish you sound
when you deny everything---even to yourself. I know you have very
little respect for yourself, but even YOU have got to be able to

see

that one!

You're always wrong. Was that French benefits?

>
> >
> > > > It is a travest what he has done to his wife, and if it

were

> not
> > for
> > > someone like me to slam him for it, others who may read this
> might
> > also
> > > do the same to an innocent. It is he who purports to be some
sort
> > of
> > > expert when he's really a nobody who envies me beyond all
> > > comprehension, and if anyone ever reads what he writes here

or

> > anywhere
> > > else, they will learn nothing. My columns do the speaking for
me
> as
> > > well as my record of play, and the fact that not one Singer-
> > wannabee
> > > like Congo or little dicky will ever accept my challenge.
> >
> > > Sounds like I must have hit a nerve. Good. It's nice to see
> Robbie
> > > squirming again. Now, if you have something intelligent let's
> hear
> > it. Otherwise your idiotic name calling is just a relection on
> > yourself.
> >
> > Um, I think that part of your confidence-building got tagged

long

> ago
> > little dicky. All I see from your quasi-post is the same ol'
addict
> > in denial. Name calling? Hardly. The truth really stings at
times,
> > does it not....
>
> It's been obvious for a long time that the you and the truth are
> complete strangers. Your replies here just cement that particular
> truth. So, when are you going to come clean on that bankruptcy.

Was

> that before or after your prison term?

Wiggle-waggling again I see. How about you come clean on exactly

how

you've been mistreating your wife, and how it began with your

giving

her a geek-administered beating?

Could you be avoiding the question? First, let me answer your
assertion. My wife and I are getting along great. Gambling when and
where we want ... living what some would consider to be a fantastic
lifestyle. Now, tell us about that bankruptcy.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#19

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

wrote:

> > More of "I'm just"?? How about "just trying to set the record
> > straight" whenever I give you a good slap you can't recover
from???
>
> Hmmm. I seemed to have recovered just fine and lovin' every

minute

of it. Seeing you squirm each and every time you reply is a

wonderful

> thing.

Now you admit you get a good slap now and then.

By the machines. Absolutely. We all do now and them.

Then you say
you've 'recovered just fine'. HAHA! I don't think so. The first

thing

you need to do is learn how to stay out of the casinos every day.

I don't go to casinos every day. Try again moron.

then try eliminating gambling from every waking day and from every
plan in your life.

Like most advantage gamblers, I plan my gambling. I also plan my
other activities, like golf. Only a completely moron would live their
life without a plan. From statements like this one I guess you fit
the bill.

>
> > The bet "as Congo offered"? How about YOU or even that clown
> > accepting a bet as I've offered--with the strategy you've been
> > criticizing since your jealous streak of me began? Hey hey

hey!

> How about it, big boy??

> How about it? Are you ready to accept Cognos' bet? Or, will you

run

> and cry "but, but, but ... " one more time. Keep squirming monkey
> boy. You are looking more foolish every minute.

I'll leave it in there again. It's obvious you have no answers

other

than to bring up the same old tired response of the famous escape
used by you and he.

That's the wonderful thing about the truth. I can bring it up time
and time again and it doesn't get old. You, on the other hand, start
squirming every time the truth appears.

>
> The bet was simple. You play YOUR system on negative machines as
> you've stated hundreds of times. We already know that any system
will work fine on positive machines, so there's no debate about
that. "How about it, big boy??"

First, show us where I state my strategy is played only on negative
machines.

Answer this question. Have you ever said the payback of the machines
does NOT matter? If the answer is YES, then I don't need to say
anything more. If the answer is NO, then I will show several examples
of where you have said EXACTLY this and proved once again you are a
liar.

I'll give you the $350k if you can find it anywhere let's
say...4 times---let alone "hundreds of times".

Of course, you don't use those exact words. You say the EV doesn't
matter or you WOULD win on negative machines, etc. The meaning is the
same. As I said before, the ONLY debate here is your claim that the
EV doesn't matter. It sure sounds like you're backing down from this
claim.

Then to show you're
not terrified of me and that I'm not dealing with a sissified geek,
you give me the cash if you don't find it! Here's a hint: Look at

the

strategy on my site first before you stick that foot in your mouth
yet again. Pretty good odds, Mr. statistical nerd, right? Out
of "hundreds of times, just show me FOUR! Let's have it logic

freak!

Do what your type of moron has always done. Get the FACTS!!! I
promise not to laugh in your face or pull your pants down in front

of

the girls. Somebody STOP ME!!!!!!!

How can we, it would be child abuse.

> >
> > Where do you see I play "only negative games"?
>
> You've claimed many times that it doesn't matter whether the
machines are positive or negative. If you now want to change that
claim then I will have proved my point.

Let me clear the obvious confusion from your thick head. In order

for

you to comprehend how I play, you first must acknowledge that my
strategy says first to play the best pay tables available where one
sits to play.

This contradicts everything you've said about EV. It either matters
or it doesn't. Sounds like you're now saying it makes a BIG
difference.

If that includes pos. games then that's what's played.
You, as a self-proclaimed 'expert' should accept that there are few
positive games available above dollars. But there are some. I've
stated over and over that MOST of my play is on negative games, and
that I've won and continue to win regardless--because of my

strategy

and the games I play--some of which are positive at the lower end.

We would all expect you win using positive games. Sounds like you are
now saying the same thing as the gurus you love to denigrate.

I
can easily win on any game below 100%, but your pal Congo for some
odd reason REQUIRED that I play ONLY <99.3% for 50 sessions, and
that's not how I play.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth once again? Either you can
win or you can't and you admit it. You can't claim "I can easily win"
and then come back with "that's not how I play". This is called
squirming and you do it all the time.

Why spend all that time criticizing my
strategy, criticizing my win record, and saying I'm lying about my
overall results AND THEN not require me to play the system that you
dufuses criticize?

BS. You can play your system. Either stop saying the payback doesn't
matter or accept the bet.

At the end of the day that proves nothing either
way. Don't you realize all you're doing is looking like you're

afraid

I just might be telling the truth by putting in your special
stipulation/escape clause that you know I'd never accept since I've
never once played that way? That's the leading comment I've been
getting from GT readers over the past week, and they're absolutely
right. You guys fear that which you do not understand, so you have

to

change it in order to be at a certain comfort level.

The squirm master at work. You see, we all know the payback DOES
matter and until you either admit it or accept the bet then all you
are doing is squirming.

>
Do you still claim that it doesn't
> matter whether a machine is positive or negative?

In any one session, it does not matter if the game is 98% or 102%.

Yes it does.

You can win just as easily as you can lose. Happens all the time
every day to millions of players.

Almost true ... except for your use of the term "easily". The higher
the payback the less likely you will lose on any given game in any
given SINGLE session.

The problem arises when people have
no win goals, and after they hit they think they can keep on

hitting

winners, and they give it all back and more. That's the curse of so-
called 'advantage players'.

Every hand is independent. Win goals make absolutely no difference in
your lifetime results. What may make a difference is playing poorly
when getting tired. If win goals help you avoid that then they work
for you. They may not be required for others. Setting time limits is
another way of accomplishing the same thing.

They have no comprehension of when to
quit or why, and part of that disease is controlled by their sacred
points accumulation. Being ahead $1000 on a 25c game means nothing.

It means you're ahead $1000.

Even if they go home $200 behind after being that far ahead, they
talk themselves into being 'happy' about such a fiasco because
they 'earned' $17/hour in phantom bucks for their 11 hours of

effort.

It's almost beyond belief how you people twist the logic.

And if they go home ahead $2200? What does that mean? It has exactly
the same meaning. Zilch. Their future expectation will not have
changed no matter what they do. Your attempt to infer that advantage
players always lose is just another one of your lies.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote:

#20

> You're favorite--DENIAL. Did you ever wonder how foolish you sound

when you deny everything---even to yourself. I know you have very
little respect for yourself, but even YOU have got to be able to

see that one!

You're always wrong. Was that French benefits?

Looks like you've never been to France either. Big surprise!

Could you be avoiding the question? First, let me answer your
assertion. My wife and I are getting along great. Gambling when and
where we want ... living what some would consider to be a fantastic
lifestyle. Now, tell us about that bankruptcy.

Looks to me like you're the one that's lying here. How about it? Ever
beat your wife? No lying again--I have proof. Now answer or else!

···

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