Dan's Asked Me To Give It My Best Shot

[rgmustain]

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

> I didn't say it was better. I just described the facts. I can
imagine
> there are lots of people who wouldn't be at all interested in my
> lifestyle. Many hobbies can be profitable, AP is just one of them.

I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working on my
older cars every day.

Could these be more addictions?

> > > pretty much unheard of, I can tell you that most players
Then, let's meet at Sams' Town where the same TRUTH
> > holds.
> > > > > Short coiners galore, busy 9-5 DDB machines. Same players
> > > > regularly
> > > > > all the while FP machines sit idle.
> > > >
> > > > I have no disagreement with what you're trying to say--that
> > locals
> > > > are found sitting at the machines all the time. To further
> > > enlighten
> > > > you here, you should know that almost every regular player--
> esp.
> > at
> > > > Sam's Town--believes they are some sort of an AP.
> > >
> > > Of course you'd love that to be true. But then, how do you
> > reconcile
> > > that with them playing short coin? They are not APers. It
appears
> > to
> > > me you don't even know what it takes to be an APer. All this
> > rhetoric
> > > blasting APers and you have no clue what an APer does. This

is

> > sweet.
> >
> > You don't need to play full-coin to believe you're an AP.
>
> No, but who cares?

That doesn't make sense.

You seem to be a little slow. The alcohol must be having its' normal
effect. In any event, what doesn't make sense? I can call myself a
airline pilot even though I have no idea how to fly a plane. One only
gets to be called an APer if they follow practices that define
Advantage Play, otherwise it's no different than me claiming to be a
pilot or you claiming to be a guru.

>You think you're a guru and no one cares about that either.

You haven't figured it out yet, have you. I mock the gurus by

calling

myself a 'guru' because I expose their slimy existence in the vp
world.

>Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.

And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when someone

walks

into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the casino.

Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math is "nonsense".

> > That's
> > where the geeks get lost in the discussions--esp. on vpFREE.
Since
> no
> > player has any advantage over ANY casino when they play
>
> I see, the laws of the universe somehow change inside a casino.
These
> con man assertions are so obvious it's not even funny.
>
> > -barring extreme mistakes by the casino -
>
> Or, over 100% VP.

Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.

More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out losing $100
instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of $100 you
are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This is how
AP works ... win some, lose less.

But when you came
in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo. Think
they're gonna just give it all away??

No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an edge.

>
> > and anyone can win at any time on
> > any machine, the advantage goes to whomever wins and leaves

with

> his
> > or her winnings.
>
> That is the goal. And, that is exactly what's so great about AP.
> People can actually win more money than they lose.

So what's the percent have to do with it then. You go in today and
play a 97% machine and win. Tomorrow you sit at a 101% game and you
lose. Happens millions of times a day.

But not over time to the same individuals. The person playing at 97%
will lose an average of 3% over time and the person playing at 101%
will win 1% over time. Both will have some wins and losses but the
winner sees their bankroll increase while the loser keeps putting
more and more money into their gambling.

Theory has nothing to do with
reality. HELLO McFLY!!

As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything to do
with a gamblers results over time.

> > First, unless you supply specifics about whom you're talking
about,
> > you can't simply dismiss a tugboat operator as being able to

also

> fly
> > a plane--any of them.
>
> Do I sense a little acrambling?

More like correcting you, the author of this stupid subject. You
weren't prepared for it from the start.

LMAO.

> > > > One thing you've clearly shown over the past 2 years is you
> have
> > no
> > > > aptitude at all when it comes to 'business'.
> > >
> > > I think most people understand the concept of keeping down
costs
> to
> > > increase profitability. Did you miss that class getting your
MBA?
> >
> > You must be the only dipstick alive who believes adding options
to
> > something already successful won't generate even more revenue.
>
> I see, now your calling these "hidden" programs, options. No one
can
> see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what purpose?
> increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...

I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the programs by
streamlinng the effort.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?
  

> > > > And oh, BTW, a 'con' is
> > > > when someone tries to get other people's money. You're just

a

> > teeny
> > > > weeny bit off on that path. Admit it little dicky!
> > >
> > > I'm right on target. Only your primary goal is to build up

your

> ego
> > > and make everyone believe you're some kind of guru. You also
> think
> > it will lead to big money eventually.
> >
> > That's a tongue-twister if I've ever seen one! Stopped cold,

you

> make
> > a 360 and say the 'con' is to build some sort of ego!! HAHA!

Now

> > THERE's positive EV without the pahntom bucks!
>
> I said exactly what I meant. The truth does get you flustered.

I like it! Made a fool of, then he comes back and CONFIRMS it! Oh
what did I do to deserve another round of 'slapping the nerd'?!

Continue with the con. What is so great is that everyone else can see
the con clearly while all you can do is babble.

>
> > > > > > Ever been to Australia? Didn't think so. Ever been on a
1st
> > > > class
> > > > > > over-the-ocean flight? Didn't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now tell us how this effects whether machnes have hot and
> cold
> > > > > cycles. Can't? Didn't think so. Typical con man approach
when
> > > > backed
> > > > > up against a wall. Try and change the subject.
> > > >
> > > > It's all in the same line of fire for you little
> > > > dicky.....humiliation on top of ridicule over and over

again.

> If
> > > > someone told me as I graduated high school I'd be having

this

> > much
> > > > fun making fun of a nerd today, I'd have never believed

them.

> > Thank
> > > > you for being YOU!
> > >
> > > ROTF again. Robbie has nothing but his standard babbling to
> defend
> > > himself and his ridiculous con. As an exposed con man, little
> > Robbie,
> > > be honest, tell us how it feels.

I'm not sure what you were trying to write, but I'm going to church
tomorrow to give thanks for my having such a good time ridiculing a
geek once more! Deja vu all over again!!!

The babble continues. Let me know when you think of something clever.

> >
> > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold cycles.
> > >
> > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how a

machine

> can
> > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not be cold
> longer.
> >
> > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain words

and

I
> > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple as

that.

> Did
> > you pass English in grade school?
>
> I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining what

you

> meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than this?

The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek would

try

to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to decipher
simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.

So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold cycles".
That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can happen.

>
> >
> > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do you fit

in

> all
> > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the cold

cycles

> are
> > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold cycle.
Robbie,
> > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> >
> > All that ramble when you still missed it!
>
> Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It couldn't
be more obvious.

Yup, and your tongue-twisting of the real wording continues. I

never

said the hot cycles were longer. You're scrambling around trying to
figure it out so you're throwing words out at a frenzied pace!

No, but that's the only way the machines could be legit given your
claim that they have more cold cycles. I'm just trying to make any
sense out of what you said. Your continual avoidence of explaining
what you meant is making it pretty obvious that you're attempting to
back away from your claim. Of course, it was obvious to me that this
was just another one of you lies.

>
> > > > > > Looks like you've got an itch from me that you can't
> scratch!....as I continue to climb on the video poker ladder of
> success,
> > > > popularity, and fame! Admit it--you're INSANELY JEALOUS!!
> > >
> > > Nope. Just pleased to have exposed you so completely and so
> > obviously
> > > that your only defense is idiotic monkey boy rhetoric.
> >
> > Oh gee, what a shame! Poor little dicky has a wedgie, and soon
> enough
> > I'll irritate him so much it'll change into a fudgie wudgie!
>
> Of course you will. Let me know when "soon enough" comes along.

Right now.

No wedgies here. I guess you lied again.

> > > > Wrong again. To these people $17k is a lifetime of magic.
> > >
> > > Of course it is Robbie. Do you even have any clue how you

look

> when
> > > you grasp at straws?
> >
> > It's all a function of your naiiveness with the world and how

it

> > really operates, little dicky. I wish i had better news for

you,

> but
> > golly gee, you're so stupid when it comes to just about

anything!

>
> From the man who "avoids" his addiction by gambling monthly.

Controlled addiction, little dicky.

Of course it is. Did you get that from you counselors?

> > > > > If they break into my place they'd be very disappointed.
I'm
> > sure
> > > > > they can do better. I know they'd really love my 22 year
old
> TV.
> > > >
> > > > To them, any of your junk is valuable.
> > >
> > > They can have it. It's insured.
> >
> > Funny you lean on that. That reminds me of an article I came
across
> > in the NY Times a couple weeks ago. It talked about what cross
> > sections of American society are more likely to commit

insurance

> > fraud vs. others. Guess where GAMBLERS showed up....and guess
where
> > PROBLEM GAMBLERS showed up!
>
> Please give a reference. Also, how did you get to insurance fraud
> from someone breaking in and stealing a TV?

Here's a hint "It's insured".....by little dicky.

"To them any junk is valuable" ... by little Robbie.

Here's another: "NY
Times a few weeks ago" by your teacher.

I have no desire to search the archives, if the "teacher" can't
provide a reference then all we can do is assume it is another lie.
However, I suspect all kinds of illegal activities are increased by
those with gambling problems. That's why the word "problem" is in
there.

Are you always this slow?

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > I didn't say it was better. I just described the facts. I can
> imagine
> > there are lots of people who wouldn't be at all interested in

my

> > lifestyle. Many hobbies can be profitable, AP is just one of

them.

>
> I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working on my
> older cars every day.

Could these be more addictions?

If so they're the healthy kind that make sense. Let's see....sit at
degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day.....or go out and
EXERCIZE during that time!! And the rest of the day have a schedule
of MORE respectable things lined up!

> > > You don't need to play full-coin to believe you're an AP.
> >
> > No, but who cares?
>
> That doesn't make sense.

You seem to be a little slow. The alcohol must be having its'

normal

effect. In any event, what doesn't make sense? I can call myself a
airline pilot even though I have no idea how to fly a plane. One

only

gets to be called an APer if they follow practices that define
Advantage Play, otherwise it's no different than me claiming to be

a pilot or you claiming to be a guru.

So you agree with my point that almost every regular player in LV
calls themself an AP. Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
by seeing a few people make dumb holds. Could be those are the ones
who are NOT AP's. Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the denial.

>
> >You think you're a guru and no one cares about that either.
>
> You haven't figured it out yet, have you. I mock the gurus by
calling
> myself a 'guru' because I expose their slimy existence in the vp
> world.
>
> >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
>
> And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when someone
walks
> into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the casino.

Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math is "nonsense".

No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the side of
the casino. You see them going out of business with promos, or are
they EXPANDING??

> Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
> advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.

More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out losing

$100

instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of $100 you
are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This is how
AP works ... win some, lose less.

What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about reality?
You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You lose they
had the advantage. What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked beans.

> But when you came
> in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo. Think
> they're gonna just give it all away??

No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an edge.

Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have about how
much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are again. I
believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over the years.
Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself looking
stupid for them all over again!

> > > and anyone can win at any time on
> > > any machine, the advantage goes to whomever wins and leaves
with
> > his
> > > or her winnings.
> >
> > That is the goal. And, that is exactly what's so great about

AP.

> > People can actually win more money than they lose.
>
> So what's the percent have to do with it then. You go in today

and

> play a 97% machine and win. Tomorrow you sit at a 101% game and

you

> lose. Happens millions of times a day.

But not over time to the same individuals. The person playing at

97%

will lose an average of 3% over time and the person playing at 101%
will win 1% over time. Both will have some wins and losses but the
winner sees their bankroll increase while the loser keeps putting
more and more money into their gambling.

That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped into
believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.

> Theory has nothing to do with
> reality. HELLO McFLY!!

As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything to do
with a gamblers results over time.

Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?

> > > First, unless you supply specifics about whom you're talking
> about,
> > > you can't simply dismiss a tugboat operator as being able to
also
> > fly
> > > a plane--any of them.
> >
> > Do I sense a little acrambling?
>
> More like correcting you, the author of this stupid subject. You
> weren't prepared for it from the start.

LMAO.
  
> > > You must be the only dipstick alive who believes adding

options

> to
> > > something already successful won't generate even more revenue.
> >
> > I see, now your calling these "hidden" programs, options. No

one

> can
> > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what purpose?
> > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
>
> I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the programs by
> streamlinng the effort.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?

Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.

> > > That's a tongue-twister if I've ever seen one! Stopped cold,
you
> > make
> > > a 360 and say the 'con' is to build some sort of ego!! HAHA!
Now
> > > THERE's positive EV without the pahntom bucks!
> >
> > I said exactly what I meant. The truth does get you flustered.
>
> I like it! Made a fool of, then he comes back and CONFIRMS it! Oh
> what did I do to deserve another round of 'slapping the nerd'?!

Continue with the con. What is so great is that everyone else can

see the con clearly while all you can do is babble.

Odd, i get plenty of private e-mails telling me they can't read my
total humiliation of you and my ripping apart of all your baloney
theories almost on a daily basis! (Now please give me a little more
of that dicky the denyer!!)

> > > > >
> > > > > It's all in the same line of fire for you little
> > > > > dicky.....humiliation on top of ridicule over and over
again.
> > If
> > > > > someone told me as I graduated high school I'd be having
this
> > > much
> > > > > fun making fun of a nerd today, I'd have never believed
them.
> > > Thank
> > > > > you for being YOU!
> > > >
> > > > ROTF again. Robbie has nothing but his standard babbling to
> > defend
> > > > himself and his ridiculous con. As an exposed con man,

little

> > > Robbie,
> > > > be honest, tell us how it feels.
>
> I'm not sure what you were trying to write, but I'm going to

church

> tomorrow to give thanks for my having such a good time ridiculing

a

> geek once more! Deja vu all over again!!!

The babble continues. Let me know when you think of something

clever.

> > >
> > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold

cycles.

> > > >
> > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how a
machine
> > can
> > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not be

cold

> > longer.
> > >
> > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain words
and
> I
> > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple as
that.
> > Did
> > > you pass English in grade school?
> >
> > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining what
you
> > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than this?
>
> The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek would
try
> to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to decipher
> simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.

So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold

cycles".

That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can

happen.

Ever hear of code written into a program?? I never did it because I
didn't need to. I was the one who designed the systems for all the
geeks to write the code for. And I'm used to telling them exactly
what to do or they were history. Now you can't fathom what I've told
you. Tough love. I'll continue to make profits by utilizing that
knowledge while you feed the Injuns!

> > > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do you fit
in
> > all
> > > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the cold
cycles
> > are
> > > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold cycle.
> Robbie,
> > > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> > >
> > > All that ramble when you still missed it!
> >
> > Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It

couldn't

> be more obvious.

But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?

>
> Yup, and your tongue-twisting of the real wording continues. I
never
> said the hot cycles were longer. You're scrambling around trying

to

> figure it out so you're throwing words out at a frenzied pace!

No, but that's the only way the machines could be legit given your
claim that they have more cold cycles. I'm just trying to make any
sense out of what you said. Your continual avoidence of explaining
what you meant is making it pretty obvious that you're attempting

to

back away from your claim. Of course, it was obvious to me that

this

was just another one of you lies.

BACK AWAY from the claim? HAHAHA! I LIVE it in the casinos!!

> >
> > > > > > > Looks like you've got an itch from me that you can't
> > scratch!....as I continue to climb on the video poker ladder of
> > success,
> > > > > popularity, and fame! Admit it--you're INSANELY JEALOUS!!
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Just pleased to have exposed you so completely and so
> > > obviously
> > > > that your only defense is idiotic monkey boy rhetoric.
> > >
> > > Oh gee, what a shame! Poor little dicky has a wedgie, and

soon

> > enough
> > > I'll irritate him so much it'll change into a fudgie wudgie!
> >
> > Of course you will. Let me know when "soon enough" comes along.
>
> Right now.

No wedgies here. I guess you lied again.

then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm sure you fit
right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the Indian
casino.

> > > > > Wrong again. To these people $17k is a lifetime of magic.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it is Robbie. Do you even have any clue how you
look
> > when
> > > > you grasp at straws?
> > >
> > > It's all a function of your naiiveness with the world and how
it
> > > really operates, little dicky. I wish i had better news for
you,
> > but
> > > golly gee, you're so stupid when it comes to just about
anything!
> >
> > From the man who "avoids" his addiction by gambling monthly.
>
> Controlled addiction, little dicky.

Of course it is. Did you get that from you counselors?

Yes. In 1995.

> > > > > > If they break into my place they'd be very

disappointed.

> I'm
> > > sure
> > > > > > they can do better. I know they'd really love my 22

year

> old
> > TV.
> > > > >
> > > > > To them, any of your junk is valuable.
> > > >
> > > > They can have it. It's insured.
> > >
> > > Funny you lean on that. That reminds me of an article I came
> across
> > > in the NY Times a couple weeks ago. It talked about what

cross

> > > sections of American society are more likely to commit
insurance
> > > fraud vs. others. Guess where GAMBLERS showed up....and guess
> where
> > > PROBLEM GAMBLERS showed up!
> >
> > Please give a reference. Also, how did you get to insurance

fraud

> > from someone breaking in and stealing a TV?
>
> Here's a hint "It's insured".....by little dicky.

"To them any junk is valuable" ... by little Robbie.

??? It's either insured or it's not. They take it or not and some
addicted gamblers are more likely to claim it as stolen, regardless,
for the insurance money.

> Here's another: "NY
> Times a few weeks ago" by your teacher.

I have no desire to search the archives, if the "teacher" can't
provide a reference then all we can do is assume it is another lie.
However, I suspect all kinds of illegal activities are increased by
those with gambling problems. That's why the word "problem" is in
there.

Are you always this slow?

You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe even more so
that you are a liar about the array of positive things you say about
yourself. No trained geek makes baseless assumptions. In fact, they
never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to be a true
nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into pathological
gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination living next
to McFly!

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> > > I didn't say it was better. I just described the facts. I can
> > imagine
> > > there are lots of people who wouldn't be at all interested in
my
> > > lifestyle. Many hobbies can be profitable, AP is just one of
them.
> >
> > I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working on

my

> > older cars every day.
>
> Could these be more addictions?

If so they're the healthy kind that make sense.

AP keeps the mind active and makes money to boot. By the way, you
just made my case for addiction not necessarily being a problem.
Thank you.

Let's see....sit at
degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day

So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic anthropomorphisms
are more evidence of a con.

.....or go out and
EXERCIZE during that time!!

I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this but 2.5
hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for other
activities.

And the rest of the day have a schedule
of MORE respectable things lined up!

What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend more than
2.5 hours a day at it.

> > > > You don't need to play full-coin to believe you're an AP.
> > >
> > > No, but who cares?
> >
> > That doesn't make sense.
>
> You seem to be a little slow. The alcohol must be having its'
normal
> effect. In any event, what doesn't make sense? I can call myself

a

> airline pilot even though I have no idea how to fly a plane. One
only
> gets to be called an APer if they follow practices that define
> Advantage Play, otherwise it's no different than me claiming to

be

a pilot or you claiming to be a guru.

So you agree with my point that almost every regular player in LV
calls themself an AP.

No. I just said it doesn't matter. Your con must be effecting your
vision.

Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
by seeing a few people make dumb holds.

No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why it is so
obvious.

Could be those are the ones
who are NOT AP's.

That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.

Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the denial.

More babble. More evidence of a con.

>
> >
> > >You think you're a guru and no one cares about that either.
> >
> > You haven't figured it out yet, have you. I mock the gurus by
> calling
> > myself a 'guru' because I expose their slimy existence in the

vp

> > world.
> >
> > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> >
> > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when someone
> walks
> > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the

casino.

>
> Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math is "nonsense".

No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the side

of

the casino.

The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?

You see them going out of business with promos, or are
they EXPANDING??

Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an edge. This
really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people on
VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.

>
> > Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
> > advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.
>
> More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out losing
$100
> instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of $100

you

> are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This is

how

> AP works ... win some, lose less.

What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about

reality?

Here comes more con man BS.

You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You lose they
had the advantage.

Wrong, the advantage has nothing to do with any single win/loss
session. Didn't I say the con would start up?

What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked beans.

I called another one.

>
> > But when you came
> > in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo.

Think

> > they're gonna just give it all away??
>
> No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an edge.

Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have about how
much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are again.

Just the facts, as usual.

I
believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over the

years.

Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself looking
stupid for them all over again!

And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.

> > > > and anyone can win at any time on
> > > > any machine, the advantage goes to whomever wins and leaves
> with
> > > his
> > > > or her winnings.
> > >
> > > That is the goal. And, that is exactly what's so great about
AP.
> > > People can actually win more money than they lose.
> >
> > So what's the percent have to do with it then. You go in today
and
> > play a 97% machine and win. Tomorrow you sit at a 101% game and
you
> > lose. Happens millions of times a day.
>
> But not over time to the same individuals. The person playing at
97%
> will lose an average of 3% over time and the person playing at

101%

> will win 1% over time. Both will have some wins and losses but

the

> winner sees their bankroll increase while the loser keeps putting
> more and more money into their gambling.

That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped into
believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.

Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie? This con
man BS is getting boring.

>
> > Theory has nothing to do with
> > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
>
> As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything to do
> with a gamblers results over time.

Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?

Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle, chuckle.

>
> > > > First, unless you supply specifics about whom you're

talking

> > about,
> > > > you can't simply dismiss a tugboat operator as being able

to

> also
> > > fly
> > > > a plane--any of them.
> > >
> > > Do I sense a little acrambling?
> >
> > More like correcting you, the author of this stupid subject.

You

> > weren't prepared for it from the start.
>
> LMAO.
  
> > > > You must be the only dipstick alive who believes adding
options
> > to
> > > > something already successful won't generate even more

revenue.

> > >
> > > I see, now your calling these "hidden" programs, options. No
one
> > can
> > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what

purpose?

> > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> >
> > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the programs by
> > streamlinng the effort.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?

Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.

Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could you at
least try to make your con a little less obvious.

> > > > That's a tongue-twister if I've ever seen one! Stopped

cold,

> you
> > > make
> > > > a 360 and say the 'con' is to build some sort of ego!!

HAHA!

> Now
> > > > THERE's positive EV without the pahntom bucks!
> > >
> > > I said exactly what I meant. The truth does get you flustered.
> >
> > I like it! Made a fool of, then he comes back and CONFIRMS it!

Oh

> > what did I do to deserve another round of 'slapping the nerd'?!
>
> Continue with the con. What is so great is that everyone else can
see the con clearly while all you can do is babble.

Odd, i get plenty of private e-mails telling me they can't read my
total humiliation of you and my ripping apart of all your baloney
theories almost on a daily basis! (Now please give me a little more
of that dicky the denyer!!)

Of course you do. I suppose we can expect another one of your fake
ids to be showing up anytime now telling us how great you are.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's all in the same line of fire for you little
> > > > > > dicky.....humiliation on top of ridicule over and over
> again.
> > > If
> > > > > > someone told me as I graduated high school I'd be

having

> this
> > > > much
> > > > > > fun making fun of a nerd today, I'd have never believed
> them.
> > > > Thank
> > > > > > you for being YOU!
> > > > >
> > > > > ROTF again. Robbie has nothing but his standard babbling

to

> > > defend
> > > > > himself and his ridiculous con. As an exposed con man,
little
> > > > Robbie,
> > > > > be honest, tell us how it feels.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to write, but I'm going to
church
> > tomorrow to give thanks for my having such a good time

ridiculing

a
> > geek once more! Deja vu all over again!!!
>
> The babble continues. Let me know when you think of something
clever.
>
> > > >
> > > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold
cycles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how a
> machine
> > > can
> > > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not be
cold
> > > longer.
> > > >
> > > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain

words

> and
> > I
> > > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple as
> that.
> > > Did
> > > > you pass English in grade school?
> > >
> > > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining

what

> you
> > > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than

this?

> >
> > The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek

would

> try
> > to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to

decipher

> > simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.
>
> So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold
cycles".
> That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can
happen.

Ever hear of code written into a program??

Of course, but it still can't happen. It can't be programed THAT WAY.
So, tell us in DESIGN terms how a machine can have more cold cycles
than hot cycles.

> > > > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do you

fit

> in
> > > all
> > > > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the cold
> cycles
> > > are
> > > > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold cycle.
> > Robbie,
> > > > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> > > >
> > > > All that ramble when you still missed it!
> > >
> > > Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It
couldn't
> > be more obvious.

But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?

I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS impossible to
hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH. Now, try
to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have are
simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long cold
cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of cold and
hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep pressing
your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles they
wouldn't be random and fair.

> >
> > Yup, and your tongue-twisting of the real wording continues. I
> never
> > said the hot cycles were longer. You're scrambling around

trying

to
> > figure it out so you're throwing words out at a frenzied pace!
>
> No, but that's the only way the machines could be legit given

your

> claim that they have more cold cycles. I'm just trying to make

any

> sense out of what you said. Your continual avoidence of

explaining

> what you meant is making it pretty obvious that you're attempting
to
> back away from your claim. Of course, it was obvious to me that
this
> was just another one of you lies.

BACK AWAY from the claim? HAHAHA! I LIVE it in the casinos!!

Of course you do. The con continues.

>
> > >
> > > > > > > > Looks like you've got an itch from me that you

can't

> > > scratch!....as I continue to climb on the video poker ladder

of

> > > success,
> > > > > > popularity, and fame! Admit it--you're INSANELY

JEALOUS!!

> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Just pleased to have exposed you so completely and

so

> > > > obviously
> > > > > that your only defense is idiotic monkey boy rhetoric.
> > > >
> > > > Oh gee, what a shame! Poor little dicky has a wedgie, and
soon
> > > enough
> > > > I'll irritate him so much it'll change into a fudgie wudgie!
> > >
> > > Of course you will. Let me know when "soon enough" comes

along.

> >
> > Right now.
>
> No wedgies here. I guess you lied again.

then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm sure you

fit

right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the Indian
casino.

Not nearby. Are you always wrong?

> > > > > > Wrong again. To these people $17k is a lifetime of

magic.

> > > > >
> > > > > Of course it is Robbie. Do you even have any clue how you
> look
> > > when
> > > > > you grasp at straws?
> > > >
> > > > It's all a function of your naiiveness with the world and

how

> it
> > > > really operates, little dicky. I wish i had better news for
> you,
> > > but
> > > > golly gee, you're so stupid when it comes to just about
> anything!
> > >
> > > From the man who "avoids" his addiction by gambling monthly.
> >
> > Controlled addiction, little dicky.
>
> Of course it is. Did you get that from you counselors?

Yes. In 1995.

I see, they told you to go gambling on a monthly basis. Hmmmm. Do I
sense another lie?

>
> > > > > > > If they break into my place they'd be very
disappointed.
> > I'm
> > > > sure
> > > > > > > they can do better. I know they'd really love my 22
year
> > old
> > > TV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To them, any of your junk is valuable.
> > > > >
> > > > > They can have it. It's insured.
> > > >
> > > > Funny you lean on that. That reminds me of an article I

came

> > across
> > > > in the NY Times a couple weeks ago. It talked about what
cross
> > > > sections of American society are more likely to commit
> insurance
> > > > fraud vs. others. Guess where GAMBLERS showed up....and

guess

> > where
> > > > PROBLEM GAMBLERS showed up!
> > >
> > > Please give a reference. Also, how did you get to insurance
fraud
> > > from someone breaking in and stealing a TV?
> >
> > Here's a hint "It's insured".....by little dicky.
>
> "To them any junk is valuable" ... by little Robbie.

??? It's either insured or it's not. They take it or not and some
addicted gamblers are more likely to claim it as stolen,

regardless,

for the insurance money.

Well, if they steal it where do you get insurance fraud? As if we
didn't alrady know.

>
> > Here's another: "NY
> > Times a few weeks ago" by your teacher.
>
> I have no desire to search the archives, if the "teacher" can't
> provide a reference then all we can do is assume it is another

lie.

> However, I suspect all kinds of illegal activities are increased

by

> those with gambling problems. That's why the word "problem" is in
> there.
>
> Are you always this slow?

You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe even more

so

that you are a liar about the array of positive things you say

about

yourself.

And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad. Wasn't it just
a couple of months ago that you were going to reveal all sorts of
details about me "soon". I guess "soon" has a different meaning to a
con man who has been caught in another lie.

No trained geek makes baseless assumptions.

Still digging aren't you?

In fact, they
never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to be a

true

nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into pathological
gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination living

next

to McFly!

LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota of truth.
I will sleep well again tonight.

[Rob_Singer1]

> > > I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working

on

my
> > > older cars every day.
> >
> > Could these be more addictions?
>
> If so they're the healthy kind that make sense.

AP keeps the mind active and makes money to boot. By the way, you
just made my case for addiction not necessarily being a problem.
Thank you.

That's a sad testimony to insanity.

> Let's see....sit at
> degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day

So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic anthropomorphisms
are more evidence of a con.

What was that word??

> .....or go out and EXERCIZE during that time!!

I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this but 2.5
hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for other
activities.

10% of the day? Where's your accuracy AGAIN! And all you're doing is
making things up in order to justify your sickness. You know that.

> And the rest of the day have a schedule
> of MORE respectable things lined up!

What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend more

than 2.5 hours a day at it.

You're the 1st that's ever called my exposing of long-term strategy
as a fraudulent system designed to put other people's money in slick
marketeers' pockets, a con. So you'll understand why I tend to ignore
it.

> > > > > You don't need to play full-coin to believe you're an AP.
> > > >
> > > > No, but who cares?
> > >
> > > That doesn't make sense.
> >
> > You seem to be a little slow. The alcohol must be having its'
> normal
> > effect. In any event, what doesn't make sense? I can call

myself

a
> > airline pilot even though I have no idea how to fly a plane.

One

> only
> > gets to be called an APer if they follow practices that define
> > Advantage Play, otherwise it's no different than me claiming to
be
> a pilot or you claiming to be a guru.
>
> So you agree with my point that almost every regular player in LV
> calls themself an AP.

No. I just said it doesn't matter. Your con must be effecting your
vision.

What's not supposed to matter? Can you be any more unclear?

> Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
> by seeing a few people make dumb holds.

No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why it is

so

obvious.

> Could be those are the ones
> who are NOT AP's.

That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.

Not so. And I've watched the Queen play various times and for 15
minutes or more each time. It's easy when someone's so overcome by
gambling. She was making perfect-play errors faster than I could
count. The same with bob D. and even the math whiz i wrote about last
month. So what makes you so different? These are the best of the best
supposedly.

> Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
> they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the denial.

More babble. More evidence of a con.

....and more truth.

> > > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> > >
> > > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when

someone

> > walks
> > > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the
casino.
> >
> > Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math is "nonsense".
>
> No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the side
of
> the casino.

The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?

who says it takes sides. It's simple logic that the casino always
holds the edge. anything else is stupid deduction.

> You see them going out of business with promos, or are
> they EXPANDING??

Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an edge.

This

really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people on
VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.

Yup. there's that "I'm better than most" again. Phoney confidence
building at it's finest!

> >
> > > Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
> > > advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.
> >
> > More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out losing
> $100
> > instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of $100
you
> > are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This is
how
> > AP works ... win some, lose less.
>
> What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about
reality?

Here comes more con man BS.

and there goes your cruthc-like theories.

> You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You lose

they

> had the advantage.

Wrong, the advantage has nothing to do with any single win/loss
session. Didn't I say the con would start up?

Now you're back to denying the truth again. Didn't I say that would
happen?

> What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
> how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked beans.

I called another one.

A loss for words....I understand. Marksmanship at it's best again!

> > > But when you came
> > > in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo.
Think
> > > they're gonna just give it all away??
> >
> > No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an

edge.

>
> Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have about how
> much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are again.

Just the facts, as usual.

And when you say that I know you're stuck. Who wouldn't be?

> I
> believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over the
years.
> Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself looking
> stupid for them all over again!

And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.

As I just said.....
  

> That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped into
> believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.

Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie? This con
man BS is getting boring.

Yawn...the same old escape when you can't walk out the front door
because of how dumb you look.

> > > Theory has nothing to do with
> > > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
> >
> > As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything to

do

> > with a gamblers results over time.
>
> Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?

Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle, chuckle.

First it's theory, then it's math, then it's Paris hilton taking a
bath with Joe Pucek....on and on with the slight of hand, only you
never passed magician school.

> > > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what
purpose?
> > > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> > >
> > > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the programs

by

> > > streamlinng the effort.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?
>
> Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.

Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could you at
least try to make your con a little less obvious.

No, the truth won't allow it.

> > > I like it! Made a fool of, then he comes back and CONFIRMS

it!

Oh
> > > what did I do to deserve another round of 'slapping the

nerd'?!

> >
> > Continue with the con. What is so great is that everyone else

can

> see the con clearly while all you can do is babble.
>
> Odd, i get plenty of private e-mails telling me they can't read

my

> total humiliation of you and my ripping apart of all your baloney
> theories almost on a daily basis! (Now please give me a little

more

> of that dicky the denyer!!)

Of course you do. I suppose we can expect another one of your fake
ids to be showing up anytime now telling us how great you are.

You mean made up on my $100 printer?

> > > I'm not sure what you were trying to write, but I'm going to
> church
> > > tomorrow to give thanks for my having such a good time
ridiculing
> a
> > > geek once more! Deja vu all over again!!!
> >
> > The babble continues. Let me know when you think of something
> clever.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold
> cycles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how a
> > machine
> > > > can
> > > > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not be
> cold
> > > > longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain
words
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple

as

> > that.
> > > > Did
> > > > > you pass English in grade school?
> > > >
> > > > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining
what
> > you
> > > > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than
this?
> > >
> > > The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek
would
> > try
> > > to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to
decipher
> > > simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.
> >
> > So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold
> cycles".
> > That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can
> happen.
>
> Ever hear of code written into a program??

Of course, but it still can't happen.

There it is--more denial when stuck.

It can't be programed THAT WAY.

So, tell us in DESIGN terms how a machine can have more cold cycles
than hot cycles.

Sure. The hot cycle doesn't come in until the machine determines
that, because of the numerous (not continuous) cold cycles, the hold
percentage is getting above a certain point. That's just a guess
however, but it's a lot better than your make-believe design
knowledge and non-stop denial of everything true that might put the
nerd into tilt mode.

> > > > > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do you
fit
> > in
> > > > all
> > > > > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the cold
> > cycles
> > > > are
> > > > > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold

cycle.

> > > Robbie,
> > > > > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> > > > >
> > > > > All that ramble when you still missed it!
> > > >
> > > > Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It
> couldn't
> > > be more obvious.
>
> But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?

I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS impossible to
hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH. Now,

try

to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have are
simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long cold
cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of cold and
hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep

pressing

your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles they
wouldn't be random and fair.

Now I see why you're seemingly so stupid about all this when you
shouldn't be with your background. The HCCCHCCCCHCCC IS 13 separate
cycles, not 6 as you believe. That part was clear. The machine is
programmed to do calculations at the beginning and end of each cycle,
so back-to-back-to-back cold cycles is very common. And here's a
special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever you see
a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle. You'll see more quads and
special quads within 1020 minutes prior to and after each SF
attained. That's been true for me in all but one session with a SF
over the past 2 years. Yet another reason for me to believe in what I
was told by someone who knows. Now it's your time to step in with the
usual illogic.

> then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm sure you
fit
> right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the

Indian

> casino.

Not nearby. Are you always wrong?

No.

> > Of course it is. Did you get that from you counselors?
>
> Yes. In 1995.

I see, they told you to go gambling on a monthly basis. Hmmmm. Do I
sense another lie?

You'll find out yourself soon enough. It's YOUR choice what to do. I
of course made the right one. In my case it wasn't about the money
because I had a solid 6-figure income and paid for virtually nothing
as I lived & travelled around the world. I was concerned I was
seriously wasting my time--and with a very unhealthy activity, and i
was completely baffled how such an intelligent person as me couldn't
defeat the machines using optimal play tactics. In other words, I
finally stopped denying things--the same curse you are involved with
right now. Too bad you're old.

> > > > Please give a reference. Also, how did you get to insurance
> fraud
> > > > from someone breaking in and stealing a TV?
> > >
> > > Here's a hint "It's insured".....by little dicky.
> >
> > "To them any junk is valuable" ... by little Robbie.
>
> ??? It's either insured or it's not. They take it or not and some
> addicted gamblers are more likely to claim it as stolen,
regardless, for the insurance money.

Well, if they steal it where do you get insurance fraud? As if we
didn't alrady know.

Here's another hint: "They take it OR NOT". OR NOT. Get the picture
yet?

> > > Here's another: "NY
> > > Times a few weeks ago" by your teacher.
> >
> > I have no desire to search the archives, if the "teacher" can't
> > provide a reference then all we can do is assume it is another
lie.
> > However, I suspect all kinds of illegal activities are

increased

by
> > those with gambling problems. That's why the word "problem" is

in

> > there.
> >
> > Are you always this slow?
>
> You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe even

more

so
> that you are a liar about the array of positive things you say
about
> yourself.

And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad.

That's odd. Almost everything about you is the antithesis of good,
honest American people.

Wasn't it just

a couple of months ago that you were going to reveal all sorts of
details about me "soon". I guess "soon" has a different meaning to

a con man who has been caught in another lie.

Now you're worrying about THAT again? You have a short ("selective")
memory to go along with that ulcer. Remember i said i would let you
stew for however long I deemed fit? that's where we are, so keep up
the nerves rattling.

> No trained geek makes baseless assumptions.

Still digging aren't you?

> In fact, they
> never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to be a
true
> nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into

pathological

> gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination living
next
> to McFly!

LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota of

truth.

I will sleep well again tonight.

Change the subject, then try to talk yourself into a relaxing way of
life that's riddled by a serious gambling problem.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working
on
> my
> > > > older cars every day.
> > >
> > > Could these be more addictions?
> >
> > If so they're the healthy kind that make sense.
>
> AP keeps the mind active and makes money to boot. By the way, you
> just made my case for addiction not necessarily being a problem.
> Thank you.

That's a sad testimony to insanity.

I guess Robbie doesn't like it when he makes my points for me.

>
> > Let's see....sit at
> > degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day
>
> So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic

anthropomorphisms

> are more evidence of a con.

What was that word??

con

>
> > .....or go out and EXERCIZE during that time!!
>
> I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this but

2.5

> hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for other
> activities.

10% of the day? Where's your accuracy AGAIN! And all you're doing

is

making things up in order to justify your sickness. You know that.

2.5/24 = 10.4166667 ... Is that better? So, what did I make up? Don't
you know how to do simple division? Is that why you failed as an
APer?

>
> > And the rest of the day have a schedule
> > of MORE respectable things lined up!
>
> What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend more
than 2.5 hours a day at it.
>
You're the 1st that's ever called my exposing of long-term strategy
as a fraudulent system designed to put other people's money in

slick

marketeers' pockets, a con.

No, I called it a scam before and they mean essentially the same
thing.

So you'll understand why I tend to ignore
it.

We all know why you ignore it.

> > Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
> > by seeing a few people make dumb holds.
>
> No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why it is
so
> obvious.
>
> > Could be those are the ones
> > who are NOT AP's.
>
> That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.

Not so.

So. You must realize that the people reading these posts also know
what I'm saying is true. Denying this is making it obvious you will
say anything to support your con.

And I've watched the Queen play various times and for 15
minutes or more each time. It's easy when someone's so overcome by
gambling. She was making perfect-play errors faster than I could
count. The same with bob D. and even the math whiz i wrote about

last

month. So what makes you so different? These are the best of the

best

supposedly.

Like the con man would say anything else. He wants us to "believe" in
him again, Robbie the almighty ...

>
> > Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
> > they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the

denial.

>
> More babble. More evidence of a con.

....and more truth.

Your truth can be equated to a lie.

> > > > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> > > >
> > > > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when
someone
> > > walks
> > > > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the
> casino.
> > >
> > > Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math

is "nonsense".

> >
> > No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the

side

> of
> > the casino.
>
> The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?

who says it takes sides.

You just did. Don't you even read your own posts?

It's simple logic that the casino always
holds the edge. anything else is stupid deduction.

No, the math determines who has the edge and it says the casino
doesn't ALWAYS have the edge. Anything else is a con.

>
> > You see them going out of business with promos, or are
> > they EXPANDING??
>
> Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an edge.
This
> really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people on
> VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.

Yup. there's that "I'm better than most" again. Phoney confidence
building at it's finest!

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > >
> > > > Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
> > > > advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.
> > >
> > > More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out

losing

> > $100
> > > instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of

$100

> you
> > > are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This

is

> how
> > > AP works ... win some, lose less.
> >
> > What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about
> reality?
>
> Here comes more con man BS.

and there goes your cruthc-like theories.
>
> > You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You lose
they
> > had the advantage.
>
> Wrong, the advantage has nothing to do with any single win/loss
> session. Didn't I say the con would start up?

Now you're back to denying the truth again. Didn't I say that would
happen?
>
> > What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
> > how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked beans.
>
> I called another one.

A loss for words....I understand. Marksmanship at it's best again!

Just the facts, as usual.

> > > > But when you came
> > > > in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo.
> Think
> > > > they're gonna just give it all away??
> > >
> > > No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an
edge.
> >
> > Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have about

how

> > much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are again.
>
> Just the facts, as usual.

And when you say that I know you're stuck. Who wouldn't be?

Not me. I just gave you the methodology behind AP and you cannot
refute my logic with a single shred of evidence. Just the facts, as
usual.

>
> > I
> > believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over the
> years.
> > Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself

looking

> > stupid for them all over again!
>
> And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.

As I just said.....

BS.

> > That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped

into

> > believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.
>
> Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie? This

con

> man BS is getting boring.

Yawn...the same old escape when you can't walk out the front door
because of how dumb you look.

Just the facts, as usual.

> > > > Theory has nothing to do with
> > > > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
> > >
> > > As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything

to

do
> > > with a gamblers results over time.
> >
> > Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?
>
> Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle,

chuckle.

First it's theory, then it's math, then it's Paris hilton taking a
bath with Joe Pucek....on and on with the slight of hand, only you
never passed magician school.

Not so well, just as I thought.

>
> > > > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what
> purpose?
> > > > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the

programs

by
> > > > streamlinng the effort.
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?
> >
> > Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.
>
> Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could you

at

> least try to make your con a little less obvious.

No, the truth won't allow it.

The almighty Robbie has once again defined the truth to be anything
that he says. LMAO.

> > > > > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold
> > cycles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how

a

> > > machine
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not

be

> > cold
> > > > > longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain
> words
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple
as
> > > that.
> > > > > Did
> > > > > > you pass English in grade school?
> > > > >
> > > > > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining
> what
> > > you
> > > > > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than
> this?
> > > >
> > > > The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek
> would
> > > try
> > > > to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to
> decipher
> > > > simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.
> > >
> > > So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold
> > cycles".
> > > That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can
> > happen.
> >
> > Ever hear of code written into a program??
>
> Of course, but it still can't happen.

There it is--more denial when stuck.

It can't be programed THAT WAY.
> So, tell us in DESIGN terms how a machine can have more cold

cycles

> than hot cycles.

Sure. The hot cycle doesn't come in until the machine determines
that, because of the numerous (not continuous) cold cycles, the

hold

percentage is getting above a certain point. That's just a guess
however, but it's a lot better than your make-believe design
knowledge and non-stop denial of everything true that might put the
nerd into tilt mode.

ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called secondary
programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT would
build illegal machines?

>
> > > > > > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do

you

> fit
> > > in
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the

cold

> > > cycles
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold
cycle.
> > > > Robbie,
> > > > > > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All that ramble when you still missed it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It
> > couldn't
> > > > be more obvious.
> >
> > But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?
>
> I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS impossible

to

> hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH. Now,
try
> to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have are
> simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long cold
> cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of cold

and

> hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep
pressing
> your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles they
> wouldn't be random and fair.

Now I see why you're seemingly so stupid about all this when you
shouldn't be with your background. The HCCCHCCCCHCCC IS 13 separate
cycles, not 6 as you believe.

Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

That part was clear. The machine is
programmed to do calculations at the beginning and end of each

cycle,

so back-to-back-to-back cold cycles is very common.

And illegal. Secondary programming is illegal, or haven't you
bothered to read the regs?

And here's a
special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever you

see

a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.

Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single quad?

You'll see more quads and
special quads within 1020 minutes prior to and after each SF
attained.

Sure you will. The con continues.

That's been true for me in all but one session with a SF
over the past 2 years.

Now there's mathematical proof. NOT.

Yet another reason for me to believe in what I
was told by someone who knows. Now it's your time to step in with

the

usual illogic.

Pure BS. What could be more obvious. You even claimed to have read
the article about the men who disassembled the VP machines' program
and found it simple and easy to beat. No secondary programming, as
anyone not perpetrating a con would expect.

>
> > then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm sure

you

> fit
> > right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the
Indian
> > casino.
>
> Not nearby. Are you always wrong?

No.

Ok, just most of the time.

> > You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe even
more
> so
> > that you are a liar about the array of positive things you say
> about
> > yourself.
>
> And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad.

That's odd. Almost everything about you is the antithesis of good,
honest American people.

And, yet, you couldn't find a thing.

Wasn't it just
> a couple of months ago that you were going to reveal all sorts of
> details about me "soon". I guess "soon" has a different meaning

to

a con man who has been caught in another lie.

Now you're worrying about THAT again? You have a short

("selective")

memory to go along with that ulcer. Remember i said i would let you
stew for however long I deemed fit? that's where we are, so keep up
the nerves rattling.

The con continues ... I caught you again litle man.

> > In fact, they
> > never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to be

a

> true
> > nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into
pathological
> > gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination living
> next
> > to McFly!
>
> LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota of
truth.
> I will sleep well again tonight.

Change the subject, then try to talk yourself into a relaxing way

of

life that's riddled by a serious gambling problem.

First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either one. You
seem to be having some problems making sense.

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and working
on
> my
> > > > older cars every day.
> > >
> > > Could these be more addictions?
> >
> > If so they're the healthy kind that make sense.
>
> AP keeps the mind active and makes money to boot. By the way, you
> just made my case for addiction not necessarily being a problem.
> Thank you.

That's a sad testimony to insanity.

I guess Robbie doesn't like it when he makes my points for me.

>
> > Let's see....sit at
> > degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day
>
> So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic

anthropomorphisms

> are more evidence of a con.

What was that word??

con

>
> > .....or go out and EXERCIZE during that time!!
>
> I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this but

2.5

> hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for other
> activities.

10% of the day? Where's your accuracy AGAIN! And all you're doing

is

making things up in order to justify your sickness. You know that.

2.5/24 = 10.4166667 ... Is that better? So, what did I make up? Don't
you know how to do simple division? Is that why you failed as an
APer?

>
> > And the rest of the day have a schedule
> > of MORE respectable things lined up!
>
> What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend more
than 2.5 hours a day at it.
>
You're the 1st that's ever called my exposing of long-term strategy
as a fraudulent system designed to put other people's money in

slick

marketeers' pockets, a con.

No, I called it a scam before and they mean essentially the same
thing.

So you'll understand why I tend to ignore
it.

We all know why you ignore it.

> > Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
> > by seeing a few people make dumb holds.
>
> No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why it is
so
> obvious.
>
> > Could be those are the ones
> > who are NOT AP's.
>
> That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.

Not so.

So. You must realize that the people reading these posts also know
what I'm saying is true. Denying this is making it obvious you will
say anything to support your con.

And I've watched the Queen play various times and for 15
minutes or more each time. It's easy when someone's so overcome by
gambling. She was making perfect-play errors faster than I could
count. The same with bob D. and even the math whiz i wrote about

last

month. So what makes you so different? These are the best of the

best

supposedly.

Like the con man would say anything else. He wants us to "believe" in
him again, Robbie the almighty ...

>
> > Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
> > they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the

denial.

>
> More babble. More evidence of a con.

....and more truth.

Your truth can be equated to a lie.

> > > > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> > > >
> > > > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when
someone
> > > walks
> > > > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to the
> casino.
> > >
> > > Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math

is "nonsense".

> >
> > No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the

side

> of
> > the casino.
>
> The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?

who says it takes sides.

You just did. Don't you even read your own posts?

It's simple logic that the casino always
holds the edge. anything else is stupid deduction.

No, the math determines who has the edge and it says the casino
doesn't ALWAYS have the edge. Anything else is a con.

>
> > You see them going out of business with promos, or are
> > they EXPANDING??
>
> Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an edge.
This
> really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people on
> VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.

Yup. there's that "I'm better than most" again. Phoney confidence
building at it's finest!

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > >
> > > > Itf it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had no
> > > > advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.
> > >
> > > More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out

losing

> > $100
> > > instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of

$100

> you
> > > are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100. This

is

> how
> > > AP works ... win some, lose less.
> >
> > What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about
> reality?
>
> Here comes more con man BS.

and there goes your cruthc-like theories.
>
> > You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You lose
they
> > had the advantage.
>
> Wrong, the advantage has nothing to do with any single win/loss
> session. Didn't I say the con would start up?

Now you're back to denying the truth again. Didn't I say that would
happen?
>
> > What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
> > how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked beans.
>
> I called another one.

A loss for words....I understand. Marksmanship at it's best again!

Just the facts, as usual.

> > > > But when you came
> > > > in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino bozo.
> Think
> > > > they're gonna just give it all away??
> > >
> > > No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with an
edge.
> >
> > Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have about

how

> > much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are again.
>
> Just the facts, as usual.

And when you say that I know you're stuck. Who wouldn't be?

Not me. I just gave you the methodology behind AP and you cannot
refute my logic with a single shred of evidence. Just the facts, as
usual.

>
> > I
> > believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over the
> years.
> > Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself

looking

> > stupid for them all over again!
>
> And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.

As I just said.....

BS.

> > That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped

into

> > believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.
>
> Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie? This

con

> man BS is getting boring.

Yawn...the same old escape when you can't walk out the front door
because of how dumb you look.

Just the facts, as usual.

> > > > Theory has nothing to do with
> > > > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
> > >
> > > As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has everything

to

do
> > > with a gamblers results over time.
> >
> > Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?
>
> Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle,

chuckle.

First it's theory, then it's math, then it's Paris hilton taking a
bath with Joe Pucek....on and on with the slight of hand, only you
never passed magician school.

Not so well, just as I thought.

>
> > > > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what
> purpose?
> > > > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the

programs

by
> > > > streamlinng the effort.
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man fairy?
> >
> > Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.
>
> Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could you

at

> least try to make your con a little less obvious.

No, the truth won't allow it.

The almighty Robbie has once again defined the truth to be anything
that he says. LMAO.

> > > > > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many cold
> > cycles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain how

a

> > > machine
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and not

be

> > cold
> > > > > longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated" certain
> words
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did. Simple
as
> > > that.
> > > > > Did
> > > > > > you pass English in grade school?
> > > > >
> > > > > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid explaining
> what
> > > you
> > > > > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better than
> this?
> > > >
> > > > The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused geek
> would
> > > try
> > > > to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to
> decipher
> > > > simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.
> > >
> > > So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many cold
> > cycles".
> > > That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this can
> > happen.
> >
> > Ever hear of code written into a program??
>
> Of course, but it still can't happen.

There it is--more denial when stuck.

It can't be programed THAT WAY.
> So, tell us in DESIGN terms how a machine can have more cold

cycles

> than hot cycles.

Sure. The hot cycle doesn't come in until the machine determines
that, because of the numerous (not continuous) cold cycles, the

hold

percentage is getting above a certain point. That's just a guess
however, but it's a lot better than your make-believe design
knowledge and non-stop denial of everything true that might put the
nerd into tilt mode.

ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called secondary
programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT would
build illegal machines?

>
> > > > > > > If you say the hot cycles are longer, then where do

you

> fit
> > > in
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > those cold cycles. And, if you try to say that the

cold

> > > cycles
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > consectutive, then that's the same as a long cold
cycle.
> > > > Robbie,
> > > > > > > you've been exposed AGAIN.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All that ramble when you still missed it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuckle, chuckle, I got it and now you're scrambling. It
> > couldn't
> > > > be more obvious.
> >
> > But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?
>
> I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS impossible

to

> hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH. Now,
try
> to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have are
> simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long cold
> cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of cold

and

> hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep
pressing
> your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles they
> wouldn't be random and fair.

Now I see why you're seemingly so stupid about all this when you
shouldn't be with your background. The HCCCHCCCCHCCC IS 13 separate
cycles, not 6 as you believe.

Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

That part was clear. The machine is
programmed to do calculations at the beginning and end of each

cycle,

so back-to-back-to-back cold cycles is very common.

And illegal. Secondary programming is illegal, or haven't you
bothered to read the regs?

And here's a
special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever you

see

a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.

Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single quad?

You'll see more quads and
special quads within 1020 minutes prior to and after each SF
attained.

Sure you will. The con continues.

That's been true for me in all but one session with a SF
over the past 2 years.

Now there's mathematical proof. NOT.

Yet another reason for me to believe in what I
was told by someone who knows. Now it's your time to step in with

the

usual illogic.

Pure BS. What could be more obvious. You even claimed to have read
the article about the men who disassembled the VP machines' program
and found it simple and easy to beat. No secondary programming, as
anyone not perpetrating a con would expect.

>
> > then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm sure

you

> fit
> > right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the
Indian
> > casino.
>
> Not nearby. Are you always wrong?

No.

Ok, just most of the time.

> > You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe even
more
> so
> > that you are a liar about the array of positive things you say
> about
> > yourself.
>
> And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad.

That's odd. Almost everything about you is the antithesis of good,
honest American people.

And, yet, you couldn't find a thing.

Wasn't it just
> a couple of months ago that you were going to reveal all sorts of
> details about me "soon". I guess "soon" has a different meaning

to

a con man who has been caught in another lie.

Now you're worrying about THAT again? You have a short

("selective")

memory to go along with that ulcer. Remember i said i would let you
stew for however long I deemed fit? that's where we are, so keep up
the nerves rattling.

The con continues ... I caught you again litle man.

> > In fact, they
> > never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to be

a

> true
> > nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into
pathological
> > gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination living
> next
> > to McFly!
>
> LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota of
truth.
> I will sleep well again tonight.

Change the subject, then try to talk yourself into a relaxing way

of

life that's riddled by a serious gambling problem.

First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either one. You
seem to be having some problems making sense.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > I kinda think I'll stick with a 4-mile jog/walk and

working

> on
> > my
> > > > > older cars every day.
> > > >
> > > > Could these be more addictions?
> > >
> > > If so they're the healthy kind that make sense.
> >
> > AP keeps the mind active and makes money to boot. By the way,

you

> > just made my case for addiction not necessarily being a

problem.

> > Thank you.
>
> That's a sad testimony to insanity.

I guess Robbie doesn't like it when he makes my points for me.

So sadddd.....

> >
> > > Let's see....sit at
> > > degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day
> >
> > So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic
anthropomorphisms
> > are more evidence of a con.
>
> What was that word??

con

No, the big one.

> >
> > > .....or go out and EXERCIZE during that time!!
> >
> > I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this but
2.5
> > hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for other
> > activities.
>
> 10% of the day? Where's your accuracy AGAIN! And all you're

doing

is
> making things up in order to justify your sickness. You know

that.

2.5/24 = 10.4166667 ... Is that better? So, what did I make up?

Don't

you know how to do simple division? Is that why you failed as an
APer?

Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every day. I'm
guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.

> >
> > > And the rest of the day have a schedule
> > > of MORE respectable things lined up!
> >
> > What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend

more

> than 2.5 hours a day at it.
> >
> You're the 1st that's ever called my exposing of long-term

strategy

> as a fraudulent system designed to put other people's money in
slick
> marketeers' pockets, a con.

No, I called it a scam before and they mean essentially the same
thing.

Scam--con. Both depict attempts at taking other people's money. I
don't need that and don't go for it. That's your heroes' jobs.

> So you'll understand why I tend to ignore
> it.

We all know why you ignore it.

> > > Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
> > > by seeing a few people make dumb holds.
> >
> > No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why it

is

> so
> > obvious.
> >
> > > Could be those are the ones
> > > who are NOT AP's.
> >
> > That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.
>
> Not so.

So. You must realize that the people reading these posts also know
what I'm saying is true. Denying this is making it obvious you

will

say anything to support your con.

You lie so much you can't even spot your own BS.

> And I've watched the Queen play various times and for 15
> minutes or more each time. It's easy when someone's so overcome

by

> gambling. She was making perfect-play errors faster than I could
> count. The same with bob D. and even the math whiz i wrote about
last
> month. So what makes you so different? These are the best of the
best
> supposedly.

Like the con man would say anything else. He wants us to "believe"

in

him again, Robbie the almighty ...

A loss for words again.... Are you that overcome by the truth?

> >
> > > Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
> > > they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the
denial.
> >
> > More babble. More evidence of a con.
>
> ....and more truth.

Your truth can be equated to a lie.

>
> > > > > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> > > > >
> > > > > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when
> someone
> > > > walks
> > > > > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to

the

> > casino.
> > > >
> > > > Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math
is "nonsense".
> > >
> > > No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on the
side
> > of
> > > the casino.
> >
> > The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?
>
> who says it takes sides.

You just did. Don't you even read your own posts?

No, but you must be reading yours!

> It's simple logic that the casino always
> holds the edge. anything else is stupid deduction.

No, the math determines who has the edge and it says the casino
doesn't ALWAYS have the edge. Anything else is a con.

Casinos always have the edge. Anything else is wording from a sick
problem gambler who wants it to be this way or the highway.

> >
> > > You see them going out of business with promos, or are
> > > they EXPANDING??
> >
> > Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an

edge.

> This
> > really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people on
> > VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.
>
> Yup. there's that "I'm better than most" again. Phoney

confidence

> building at it's finest!

Just the facts, as usual.

You say that all the time, but WHERE are they?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > If it were 130% it wouldn't matter. If you lose you had

no

> > > > > advantage, and if you walk out a winner you did.
> > > >
> > > > More BS, and it isn't close to accurate. If you walk out
losing
> > > $100
> > > > instead of $200 and the next time winning $200 instead of
$100
> > you
> > > > are ahead $100. Someone without an edge is behind $100.

This

is
> > how
> > > > AP works ... win some, lose less.
> > >
> > > What's that gobbledegook? This theory/that theory. How about
> > reality?
> >
> > Here comes more con man BS.
>
> and there goes your crutch-like theories.
> >
> > > You win you leave with the advantage over the casino. You

lose

> they
> > > had the advantage.
> >
> > Wrong, the advantage has nothing to do with any single

win/loss

> > session. Didn't I say the con would start up?
>
> Now you're back to denying the truth again. Didn't I say that

would

> happen?
> >
> > > What you go in with on your mind means beans, and
> > > how you add it into some not-yet-existent day is cooked

beans.

> >
> > I called another one.
>
> A loss for words....I understand. Marksmanship at it's best

again!

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > > > > But when you came
> > > > > in, you were at a serious disadvantage. It's a casino

bozo.

> > Think
> > > > > they're gonna just give it all away??
> > > >
> > > > No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with

an

> edge.
> > >
> > > Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have

about

how
> > > much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are

again.

> >
> > Just the facts, as usual.

But where?

>
> And when you say that I know you're stuck. Who wouldn't be?

Not me. I just gave you the methodology behind AP and you cannot
refute my logic with a single shred of evidence. Just the facts,

as

usual.

But where are they?? Did you delete them?

> >
> > > I
> > > believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over

the

> > years.
> > > Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself
looking
> > > stupid for them all over again!
> >
> > And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.
>
> As I just said.....

BS.

>
> > > That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped
into
> > > believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.
> >
> > Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie? This
con
> > man BS is getting boring.
>
> Yawn...the same old escape when you can't walk out the front

door

> because of how dumb you look.

Just the facts, as usual.

But where??

>
> > > > > Theory has nothing to do with
> > > > > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
> > > >
> > > > As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has

everything

to
> do
> > > > with a gamblers results over time.
> > >
> > > Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?
> >
> > Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle,
chuckle.
>
> First it's theory, then it's math, then it's Paris Hilton taking

a

> bath with Joe Pucek....on and on with the slight of hand, only

you

> never passed magician school.

Not so well, just as I thought.

> >
> > > > > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ... what
> > purpose?
> > > > > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the
programs
> by
> > > > > streamlinng the effort.
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man

fairy?

> > >
> > > Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.
> >
> > Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could

you

at
> > least try to make your con a little less obvious.
>
> No, the truth won't allow it.

The almighty Robbie has once again defined the truth to be

anything

that he says. LMAO.

when you're at the level I'm at that's how it goes, little dicky.
Take that as a lesson in case you ever get another shot at life.
That way you won't be so disgraced and humiliated like you now are
by wishing you 'belonged' or knew how to play the game right.

> > > > > > > > > Nope. I stated that there are few hot and many

cold

> > > cycles.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, moron, but that's the same thing. Explain

how

a
> > > > machine
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > have many cold cycles, only a few hot cycles and

not

be
> > > cold
> > > > > > longer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read your own words bozo. You said "you stated"

certain

> > words
> > > > and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > did not. I said "I stated" and, as usual, I did.

Simple

> as
> > > > that.
> > > > > > Did
> > > > > > > you pass English in grade school?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I must admit this a very poor attempt to avoid

explaining

> > what
> > > > you
> > > > > > meant. Can't you support your idiotic con any better

than

> > this?
> > > > >
> > > > > The words as printed is what I meant. Only a confused

geek

> > would
> > > > try
> > > > > to change the meaning. Use some of those 4 computers to
> > decipher
> > > > > simple wording and it might let you sleep tonight.
> > > >
> > > > So, you did mean that VP macines have "few hot and many

cold

> > > cycles".
> > > > That's also what I said you stated. Now, explain how this

can

> > > happen.
> > >
> > > Ever hear of code written into a program??
> >
> > Of course, but it still can't happen.
>
> There it is--more denial when stuck.
>
> It can't be programed THAT WAY.
> > So, tell us in DESIGN terms how a machine can have more cold
cycles
> > than hot cycles.
>
> Sure. The hot cycle doesn't come in until the machine determines
> that, because of the numerous (not continuous) cold cycles, the
hold
> percentage is getting above a certain point. That's just a guess
> however, but it's a lot better than your make-believe design
> knowledge and non-stop denial of everything true that might put

the

> nerd into tilt mode.

ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called secondary
programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT would
build illegal machines?

There's that selective interpretation of a straight statement once
again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth, so he
calls it 'illegal"!! I should turn you in for lying so much. And
there's nothing illegal about writing the code that way. Just how
many times am i going to have to put you down in your own purported
field??

> > > But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just playing?
> >
> > I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS

impossible

to
> > hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH.

Now,

> try
> > to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have

are

> > simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long

cold

> > cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of cold
and
> > hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep
> pressing
> > your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles

they

> > wouldn't be random and fair.
>
> Now I see why you're seemingly so stupid about all this when you
> shouldn't be with your background. The HCCCHCCCCHCCC IS 13

separate

> cycles, not 6 as you believe.

Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.

> That part was clear. The machine is
> programmed to do calculations at the beginning and end of each
cycle,
> so back-to-back-to-back cold cycles is very common.

And illegal. Secondary programming is illegal, or haven't you
bothered to read the regs?

WAWAWAWAWAAAAA! More of the illegal stuff. Cry all you want. You
will never get it your way!

> And here's a
> special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever

you

see
> a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.

Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single quad?

I submit you don't know WHAT you're doing most of the time.

> You'll see more quads and
> special quads within 1020 minutes prior to and after each SF
> attained.

Sure you will. The con continues.

> That's been true for me in all but one session with a SF
> over the past 2 years.

Now there's mathematical proof. NOT.

Who cars about geek-proof? Never bothered me, and I win more
consistently than anyone--even the geeks.

> Yet another reason for me to believe in what I
> was told by someone who knows. Now it's your time to step in

with

the
> usual illogic.

Pure BS. What could be more obvious. You even claimed to have read
the article about the men who disassembled the VP machines'

program

and found it simple and easy to beat. No secondary programming, as
anyone not perpetrating a con would expect.

Like I said. More illogic combined with denial. The perfect picture
of loss.

> >
> > > then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm

sure

you
> > fit
> > > right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in the
> Indian
> > > casino.
> >
> > Not nearby. Are you always wrong?
>
> No.

Ok, just most of the time.

> > > You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe

even

> more
> > so
> > > that you are a liar about the array of positive things you

say

> > about
> > > yourself.
> >
> > And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad.
>
> That's odd. Almost everything about you is the antithesis of

good,

> honest American people.

And, yet, you couldn't find a thing.

Who said I didn't? Just cause you don't want it to be that way
doesn't mean the geek gets that snapshot!

>
> Wasn't it just
> > a couple of months ago that you were going to reveal all sorts

of

> > details about me "soon". I guess "soon" has a different

meaning

to
> a con man who has been caught in another lie.
>
> Now you're worrying about THAT again? You have a short
("selective")
> memory to go along with that ulcer. Remember i said i would let

you

> stew for however long I deemed fit? that's where we are, so keep

up

> the nerves rattling.

The con continues ... I caught you again litle man.

....as your ulcer eats away at you again! To my DELIGHT!!

> > > In fact, they
> > > never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to

be

a
> > true
> > > nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into
> pathological
> > > gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination

living

> > next
> > > to McFly!
> >
> > LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota of
> truth.
> > I will sleep well again tonight.
>
> Change the subject, then try to talk yourself into a relaxing

way

of
> life that's riddled by a serious gambling problem.

First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either one. You
seem to be having some problems making sense.

You're both, that's for sure. And you're an addict to boot!

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> > > > Let's see....sit at
> > > > degenerate machines for 2.5 hours every day
> > >
> > > So, now the machines are degenerate. Your idiotic
> anthropomorphisms
> > > are more evidence of a con.
> >
> > What was that word??
>
> con

No, the big one.

Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
Function: noun
: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of
human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION

>
> > >
> > > > .....or go out and EXERCIZE during that time!!
> > >
> > > I exercise almost every day. Maybe you didn't realize this

but

> 2.5
> > > hours is just 10% of day. That leaves plenty of time for

other

> > > activities.
> >
> > 10% of the day? Where's your accuracy AGAIN! And all you're
doing
> is
> > making things up in order to justify your sickness. You know
that.
>
> 2.5/24 = 10.4166667 ... Is that better? So, what did I make up?
Don't
> you know how to do simple division? Is that why you failed as an
> APer?

Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every day. I'm
guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.

Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise bike.

>
> > >
> > > > And the rest of the day have a schedule
> > > > of MORE respectable things lined up!
> > >
> > > What's respectable about running a con. You probably spend
more
> > than 2.5 hours a day at it.
> > >
> > You're the 1st that's ever called my exposing of long-term
strategy
> > as a fraudulent system designed to put other people's money in
> slick
> > marketeers' pockets, a con.
>
> No, I called it a scam before and they mean essentially the same
> thing.

Scam--con. Both depict attempts at taking other people's money.

Your point?

>
> > So you'll understand why I tend to ignore
> > it.
>
> We all know why you ignore it.
>
> > > > Good for you. Now tell me why they're not just
> > > > by seeing a few people make dumb holds.
> > >
> > > No. I almost NEVER see anyone making GOOD holds. That's why

it

is
> > so
> > > obvious.
> > >
> > > > Could be those are the ones
> > > > who are NOT AP's.
> > >
> > > That's right, and it's the vast majority of players.
> >
> > Not so.
>
> So. You must realize that the people reading these posts also

know

> what I'm saying is true. Denying this is making it obvious you
will
> say anything to support your con.

You lie so much you can't even spot your own BS.

Just the facts, as usual. It is quite nice of you to make me look so
good by arguing against common knowledge.

>
> > And I've watched the Queen play various times and for 15
> > minutes or more each time. It's easy when someone's so overcome
by
> > gambling. She was making perfect-play errors faster than I

could

> > count. The same with bob D. and even the math whiz i wrote

about

> last
> > month. So what makes you so different? These are the best of

the

> best
> > supposedly.
>
> Like the con man would say anything else. He wants us

to "believe"

in
> him again, Robbie the almighty ...

A loss for words again.... Are you that overcome by the truth?

I haven't seen one from you. You seem to think that throwing away one
of the pairs in a dealt two pair hand is right, so why whould we
believe you have any idea whether someone is making the correct
holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at all.

>
> > >
> > > > Besides, it's all a vp junkie thing. AP's know what
> > > > they are, they don't admit it, and they suffer through the
> denial.
> > >
> > > More babble. More evidence of a con.
> >
> > ....and more truth.
>
> Your truth can be equated to a lie.
>
> >
> > > > > > >Let's get this straight. APers ONLY play with an edge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And lets get this straight: There's only one edge when
> > someone
> > > > > walks
> > > > > > into a casino ever, and it always and only belongs to
the
> > > casino.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lie. There you go again claiming that simple math
> is "nonsense".
> > > >
> > > > No, the simple fact is that the simple math is always on

the

> side
> > > of
> > > > the casino.
> > >
> > > The math doesn't take sides. Another anthropomorphism?
> >
> > who says it takes sides.
>
> You just did. Don't you even read your own posts?

No, but you must be reading yours!

You said "the simple math is always on the side of the casino". Boy
is this easy. QED.

>
> > It's simple logic that the casino always
> > holds the edge. anything else is stupid deduction.
>
> No, the math determines who has the edge and it says the casino
> doesn't ALWAYS have the edge. Anything else is a con.

Casinos always have the edge.

Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me for not
pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players sometimes
have "the edge". QED.

Anything else is wording from a sick
problem gambler who wants it to be this way or the highway.

Just the facts, as usual.

>
> > >
> > > > You see them going out of business with promos, or are
> > > > they EXPANDING??
> > >
> > > Expanding with the losses of the 99%+ who play without an
edge.
> > This
> > > really is easy to figure out. Do you see millions of people

on

> > > VPFree? Millions of people gamble. Do the math.
> >
> > Yup. there's that "I'm better than most" again. Phoney
confidence
> > building at it's finest!
>
> Just the facts, as usual.
>
You say that all the time, but WHERE are they?

I've already provided them, I can't help it that you're a poor reader
and a LAF. For example, I just asked if you "see millions of people
on VPFree?" The obvious answer is no, which is a FACT. This fact
demonstrates that there are very few advantage players compared to
the millions of gamblers in this country.

> > > > > No, you have play smart, accurately and consistently with
an
> > edge.
> > > >
> > > > Oh I see. There's part of the faulty attitude AP's have
about
> how
> > > > much smarter than "the other guys" they think they are
again.
> > >
> > > Just the facts, as usual.

But where?

Where they always are. In my posts. Of course, your constant denial
of the proven mathematical FACT that some VP machines give the player
an edge shows just how far you will go to perpetrate your con.

> >
> > And when you say that I know you're stuck. Who wouldn't be?
>
> Not me. I just gave you the methodology behind AP and you cannot
> refute my logic with a single shred of evidence. Just the facts,
as
> usual.

But where are they?? Did you delete them?

You read them and lied about the obvious truths. That is part of your
con.

>
> > >
> > > > I
> > > > believe I've shot each guru in the foot with that one over
the
> > > years.
> > > > Too bad you don't 'belong'. You could have saved yourself
> looking
> > > > stupid for them all over again!
> > >
> > > And the con continues. Still waiting for a SINGLE fact.
> >
> > As I just said.....
>
> BS.
>
> >
> > > > That's the classroom BS theory new players always get roped
> into
> > > > believing....until they discover it's total nonsense.
> > >
> > > Still trying to say the math doesn't work, little Robbie?

This

> con
> > > man BS is getting boring.
> >
> > Yawn...the same old escape when you can't walk out the front
door
> > because of how dumb you look.
>
> Just the facts, as usual.

But where??

In my posts.

>
> >
> > > > > > Theory has nothing to do with
> > > > > > reality. HELLO McFLY!!
> > > > >
> > > > > As I just pointed out, the MATH, not theory, has
everything
> to
> > do
> > > > > with a gamblers results over time.
> > > >
> > > > Llalalalala--are you straight from lala land?
> > >
> > > Just the facts. How's the con going? Not so well? Chuckle,
> chuckle.
> >
> > First it's theory, then it's math, then it's Paris Hilton

taking

a
> > bath with Joe Pucek....on and on with the slight of hand, only
you
> > never passed magician school.
>
> Not so well, just as I thought.
>
> > >
> > > > > > > see them or use them but IGT adds them in for ...

what

> > > purpose?
> > > > > > > increased costs? Yup. The con goes on and on ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm told they're actually cheaper to include in the
> programs
> > by
> > > > > > streamlinng the effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who told you this, the con man
fairy?
> > > >
> > > > Your achillies heal--a REAL software engineer.
> > >
> > > Of course one did. The mysterious "no name" engineer. Could
you
> at
> > > least try to make your con a little less obvious.
> >
> > No, the truth won't allow it.
>
> The almighty Robbie has once again defined the truth to be
anything
> that he says. LMAO.

when you're at the level I'm at that's how it goes, little dicky.
Take that as a lesson in case you ever get another shot at life.
That way you won't be so disgraced and humiliated like you now are
by wishing you 'belonged' or knew how to play the game right.

LMAO, the monkey boy returns when the frustration sets in.

> ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called secondary
> programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT would
> build illegal machines?

There's that selective interpretation of a straight statement once
again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth, so he
calls it 'illegal"!!

Just the facts, as usual. See:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section 14.040.3 where
it states "the device must not make a variable secondary decision".
Is this the type of fact you've been asking for? Of course, we'll see
Robbie the LAF claiming I never present any facts again real soon. He
just can't help but lie and lie and lie. QED.

I should turn you in for lying so much. And
there's nothing illegal about writing the code that way. Just how
many times am i going to have to put you down in your own purported
field??

As often as you wish to look foolish.

>
> > > > But you still missed it! Are you that stupid or just

playing?

> > >
> > > I'll admit I'm playing around with you because it IS
impossible
> to
> > > hae more cold than hot cycles. Try it yourself. HCHCHCHCHCH.
Now,
> > try
> > > to have more cold cycles HCCCHCCCHCCC. What you really have
are
> > > simply longer cold cycles with each CCC representing a long
cold
> > > cycle. That puts you right back to HCHCHC. Same number of

cold

> and
> > > hot cycles just as I said to begin with, but you had to keep
> > pressing
> > > your lie. Now, if the machines really had longer cold cycles
they
> > > wouldn't be random and fair.
> >
> > Now I see why you're seemingly so stupid about all this when

you

> > shouldn't be with your background. The HCCCHCCCCHCCC IS 13
separate
> > cycles, not 6 as you believe.
>
> Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.

Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100 cold
cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people would
look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed this was
illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will go to
perpetrate your con.

>
> > That part was clear. The machine is
> > programmed to do calculations at the beginning and end of each
> cycle,
> > so back-to-back-to-back cold cycles is very common.
>
> And illegal. Secondary programming is illegal, or haven't you
> bothered to read the regs?

WAWAWAWAWAAAAA! More of the illegal stuff. Cry all you want. You
will never get it your way!

I just GOT is my way. You are such a fool.

>
> > And here's a
> > special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever
you
> see
> > a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.
>
> Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single quad?

I submit you don't know WHAT you're doing most of the time.

It shouldn't matter if the machine is in an illegal hot cycle, now
should it little man. QED.

>
> > You'll see more quads and
> > special quads within 1020 minutes prior to and after each SF
> > attained.
>
> Sure you will. The con continues.
>
> > That's been true for me in all but one session with a SF
> > over the past 2 years.
>
> Now there's mathematical proof. NOT.

Who cars about geek-proof? Never bothered me, and I win more
consistently than anyone--even the geeks.

QED.

>
> > Yet another reason for me to believe in what I
> > was told by someone who knows. Now it's your time to step in
with
> the
> > usual illogic.
>
> Pure BS. What could be more obvious. You even claimed to have

read

> the article about the men who disassembled the VP machines'
program
> and found it simple and easy to beat. No secondary programming,

as

> anyone not perpetrating a con would expect.

Like I said. More illogic combined with denial. The perfect picture
of loss.

LMAO. Nothing to refute this little FACT? Only idiotic babble. QED.

>
> > >
> > > > then thank you for alerting us of the fudgie wudgie. I'm
sure
> you
> > > fit
> > > > right in with the low-life degenerates who sit nearby in

the

> > Indian
> > > > casino.
> > >
> > > Not nearby. Are you always wrong?
> >
> > No.
>
> Ok, just most of the time.
>
> > > > You're always assuming things, which leads me to believe
even
> > more
> > > so
> > > > that you are a liar about the array of positive things you
say
> > > about
> > > > yourself.
> > >
> > > And the fact that you couldn't dredge up anything bad.
> >
> > That's odd. Almost everything about you is the antithesis of
good,
> > honest American people.
>
> And, yet, you couldn't find a thing.

Who said I didn't? Just cause you don't want it to be that way
doesn't mean the geek gets that snapshot!

So far so haven't provided anything, zilch, nada, zippo. I think a
couple of months is more than enough time to convince anyone that you
were lying all along.

> > > > In fact, they
> > > > never get off the beaten path. Ever. You wander too much to
be
> a
> > > true
> > > > nerd. And the fact that you've been easily roped into
> > pathological
> > > > gambling tells even more. You must have some imagination
living
> > > next
> > > > to McFly!
> > >
> > > LMAO. The con man babbles and babbles and says not one iota

of

> > truth.
> > > I will sleep well again tonight.
> >
> > Change the subject, then try to talk yourself into a relaxing
way
> of
> > life that's riddled by a serious gambling problem.
>
> First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either one.

You

> seem to be having some problems making sense.

You're both, that's for sure. And you're an addict to boot!

So, now you're even contradicting your own statements. Works for me.

···

Date: 1753

[Rob_Singer1]

Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1753
: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of
human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION

That's the 1st thing I've ever learned from you!

> Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every day.

I'm guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.

Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise bike.

Oops! How could I be so wrong.....

> in
> > him again, Robbie the almighty ...
>
> A loss for words again.... Are you that overcome by the truth?

I haven't seen one from you. You seem to think that throwing away

one

of the pairs in a dealt two pair hand is right, so why whould we
believe you have any idea whether someone is making the correct
holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at all.

Because I'm an expert at knowing the computer-perfect holds in every
game I play within my strategies. Anyone who says that it's not
likely for someone to hold those plays inside when not playing (or,
snicker snicker, practicing them) all the time has an inferior brain.
I've never watched anyone play any of the DW/JW games because those
are useless to me. And of course you'd deny my having monitored
Jean's play. If you didn't, it'd make it tougher to argue.

> Casinos always have the edge.

Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me for not
pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players sometimes
have "the edge". QED.

Regardless of the silly qed here, this is an important misconception
that need correction. You and all the other make-believe AP's SHOULD
know where and what ALL the local positive opportunities are at all
times. There's enough databases and supposed personal friends out
there to scrub each other's backs with. I've even given Elliot
several progressives plays no one told him about over the years--even
though I'd never play them. It's what's called a 'resource'. But do
players "sometimes have the edge"? Absolutely not--regardless what
the play-of-the-day is or where it is. The only people who make that
103% or higher are the ones who win, and most don't. It's nothing
more than a state of mind.

Do you see millions of people on VPFree? Millions of people gamble.
Do the math.

So now players must own computers, be interested in the Internet,
belong to vpFREE, be consumed by the game, or be concerned about what
a bunch of whining misfits have to say in order to play video poker
inside casinos while knowing what they're doing. God save the Queen
(not that one)!

> > ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called secondary
> > programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT

would

> > build illegal machines?
>
> There's that selective interpretation of a straight statement

once again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth, so he

> calls it 'illegal"!!

Just the facts, as usual. See:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section 14.040.3

where it states "the device must not make a variable secondary
decision". Is this the type of fact you've been asking for?

Did I mention selective interpretation yet...or more to the point, an
inexperienced knowledge of the meaning in the statute's wording by
little dicky? Only you would call it a 'seconday program' because you
knew that was identified in the regs. Sorry, but you just made a fool
of yourself again. Maybe years ago when you were a programmer you
were taught to think in a straight line without creating anything you
weren't told to create. But in the last 10 years there's been geek-
progress made in the real world, only it's too bad you've not kept up
with it. That simple sentence you've copied and pasted refers to an
after-the-fact event--something clearly not incorporated into the
hot/cold cycle parameter. You should know better, but when the shoe
doesn't fit, scramble around for clouds.

> > Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

> CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.

Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100 cold
cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people would
look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed this was
illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will go to
perpetrate your con.

I though you prefer to be geek-clear on such an issue! Re-arranging
the wording to fit your hypothesis might work at a bank of machines
loaded with addict AP's, but here you're just being caught in another
of your esacpe-from-reality adventures.

> > > And here's a
> > > special secret I'm giving out to help you do better. Whenever
> you see a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.
> >
> > Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single quad?
>
> I submit you don't know WHAT you're doing most of the time.

I'll leave that in for now because I've received some interesting e-
mails on the subject today. Oh, BTW---they ALL agree with it.
  

> > First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either one.
You seem to be having some problems making sense.

> You're both, that's for sure. And you're an addict to boot!

So, now you're even contradicting your own statements. Works for me.

You're all 3, and if you continue to look stupid in the face of pure
reality then another trait might be added. Be prepared for the worst.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
> Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
> Function: noun
> Date: 1753
> : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of
> human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION

That's the 1st thing I've ever learned from you!

No, You forgot about QED, about Nevada gaming regs, about how VP
machines really work, about Indian casinos being regulated, about
Pakistani languages, ... This could go on for a very long time so
I'll keep it short.

> > Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every day.
I'm guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.
>
> Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise bike.

Oops! How could I be so wrong.....

Easy, it's business as usual.

>
> > in
> > > him again, Robbie the almighty ...
> >
> > A loss for words again.... Are you that overcome by the truth?
>
> I haven't seen one from you. You seem to think that throwing away
one
> of the pairs in a dealt two pair hand is right, so why whould we
> believe you have any idea whether someone is making the correct
> holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at all.

Because I'm an expert at knowing the computer-perfect holds in

every

game I play within my strategies.

So you claim, but haven't shown us any reason to believe it.

Anyone who says that it's not
likely for someone to hold those plays inside when not playing (or,
snicker snicker, practicing them) all the time has an inferior

brain.

Now you admit to practicing when just a couple of day ago you
belittled the use of winpoker and VPSM. My, my.

I've never watched anyone play any of the DW/JW games because those
are useless to me. And of course you'd deny my having monitored
Jean's play. If you didn't, it'd make it tougher to argue.

Nope, just sounds kind of fishy that you would belittle her and yet
find the time to watch her. Sounds more like jealous envy.

> > Casinos always have the edge.
>
> Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me for not
> pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players

sometimes

> have "the edge". QED.

Regardless of the silly qed here, this is an important

misconception

that need correction. You and all the other make-believe AP's

SHOULD

know where and what ALL the local positive opportunities are at all
times.

BS. Why should I track hundreds of possible plays when I can only
play a few. It is poor time management to say the least.

There's enough databases and supposed personal friends out
there to scrub each other's backs with. I've even given Elliot
several progressives plays no one told him about over the years--

even

though I'd never play them. It's what's called a 'resource'. But do
players "sometimes have the edge"? Absolutely not--regardless what
the play-of-the-day is or where it is. The only people who make

that

103% or higher are the ones who win, and most don't. It's nothing
more than a state of mind.

QED.

>
Do you see millions of people on VPFree? Millions of people

gamble.

Do the math.

So now players must own computers, be interested in the Internet,
belong to vpFREE, be consumed by the game, or be concerned about

what

a bunch of whining misfits have to say in order to play video poker
inside casinos while knowing what they're doing.

No, just the APers. That's one reason there are so few of them. Of
course, just a few lines above you commented that I should know about
ALL the good plays to be an APer. Now, you're stating they shouldn't
have to pursue anything at all. From which side of his mouth will
Robbies next sentence spew forth?

> > > ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called

secondary

> > > programming. You think anyone is going to believe that IGT
would
> > > build illegal machines?
> >
> > There's that selective interpretation of a straight statement
once again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth, so

he

> > calls it 'illegal"!!

> Just the facts, as usual. See:
> http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section 14.040.3
where it states "the device must not make a variable secondary
decision". Is this the type of fact you've been asking for?

Did I mention selective interpretation yet...or more to the point,

an

inexperienced knowledge of the meaning in the statute's wording by
little dicky? Only you would call it a 'seconday program' because

you

knew that was identified in the regs. Sorry, but you just made a

fool

of yourself again. Maybe years ago when you were a programmer you
were taught to think in a straight line without creating anything

you

weren't told to create. But in the last 10 years there's been geek-
progress made in the real world, only it's too bad you've not kept

up

with it. That simple sentence you've copied and pasted refers to an
after-the-fact event--something clearly not incorporated into the
hot/cold cycle parameter. You should know better, but when the shoe
doesn't fit, scramble around for clouds.

Typical babbling when caught with his pant down. The FACTs once again
refute little Robbies' claims. Anyone suprised?

> > > Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

> > CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.

> Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100 cold
> cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people

would

> look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed this was
> illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will go

to

> perpetrate your con.

I though you prefer to be geek-clear on such an issue! Re-arranging
the wording to fit your hypothesis might work at a bank of machines
loaded with addict AP's, but here you're just being caught in

another

of your esacpe-from-reality adventures.

QED. Did you even bother to go read the regulation?

>
> > > > And here's a
> > > > special secret I'm giving out to help you do better.

Whenever

> > you see a SF, the machine IS in a hot cycle.
> > >
> > > Is that why I've lost an entire SF without seeing a single

quad?

> >
> > I submit you don't know WHAT you're doing most of the time.

I'll leave that in for now because I've received some interesting e-
mails on the subject today. Oh, BTW---they ALL agree with it.

Of course they do ... LMAO.

> > > First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either

one.

> You seem to be having some problems making sense.

> > You're both, that's for sure. And you're an addict to boot!

> So, now you're even contradicting your own statements. Works for

me.

You're all 3,

But you said "You wander too much to be a true nerd", I guess you
can't even understand your own posts.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
> > Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1753
> > : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms

of

> > human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION
>
> That's the 1st thing I've ever learned from you!

No, You forgot about QED, about Nevada gaming regs, about how VP
machines really work, about Indian casinos being regulated, about
Pakistani languages, ... This could go on for a very long time so
I'll keep it short.

You're right--I should have clarified. It's the first thing I've
learned from you that I was able to absolutely verify by looking at
the source. That other stuff you mentioned was, is and always will be
a spin-off of your selective interpretations while disregarding clear
fact, needed justifications in order that you don't go bonkers
feeding your degenerate habit, and feel-good misrepresentations that
those getting clobbered eventually fall prey to.

> > > Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every

day.

> I'm guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.
> >
> > Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise bike.
>
> Oops! How could I be so wrong.....

Easy, it's business as usual.

Exactly. It's your lying in the face of being embarrassed over your
video-poker body, those man-tits, and just a general overall feeling
of inferiority because of it when addressing me.

> > believe you have any idea whether someone is making the correct
> > holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at all.
>
> Because I'm an expert at knowing the computer-perfect holds in
every game I play within my strategies.

So you claim, but haven't shown us any reason to believe it.

What consiitutes that--the same thing you show you know that stupid
one-eyed game with? Remember, I'm a public figure with a reputation
of being the best, so knowing what I'm doing is a standard part of my
life. It comes natural. You're a nobody with nothing to lose no
matter how stupid you are or sound. Add it up.

> Anyone who says that it's not likely for someone to hold those

plays inside when not playing (or, snicker snicker, practicing them)
all the time has an inferior brain.

Now you admit to practicing when just a couple of day ago you
belittled the use of winpoker and VPSM. My, my.

Zziinnnggggg....right over (or was it through this time too?) your
pea-brain again! Continue to use winpoker or that other nonsense for
practice and I'll continue to belittle you. The best part of that is
you should be using every one of those hands you play at home in
your "long-term" picture, but miracle of miracles, it just doesn't
fit the make believe scenario you choose to live.

> I've never watched anyone play any of the DW/JW games because

those are useless to me. And of course you'd deny my having monitored

> Jean's play. If you didn't, it'd make it tougher to argue.

Nope, just sounds kind of fishy that you would belittle her and yet
find the time to watch her. Sounds more like jealous envy.

Wake up, McFLY!! Sometimes experience does have it's value. I never
got on her case until I watched her. It was all a part of my book &
expose' of these bazookas--just as going to a Bob Dancer class and
disrupting it with common sense was befoe he knew who I was. Better
fish somewhere else--they're not biting here!

> > > Casinos always have the edge.
> >
> > Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me for

not pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players

sometimes have "the edge". QED.

> Regardless of the silly qed here, this is an important
misconception that needs correction. You and all the other make-

believe AP's SHOULD know where and what ALL the local positive
opportunities are at all times.

BS. Why should I track hundreds of possible plays when I can only
play a few. It is poor time management to say the least.

Here's a hint: THE BEST AP's only play THE BEST plays! Giving up and
edge now...is that what you're admitting to? Or is it just plain
laziness. Or part of the overall lie about the AP??

> There's enough databases and supposed personal friends out
> there to scrub each other's backs with. I've even given Elliot
> several progressives plays no one told him about over the years--
even though I'd never play them. It's what's called a 'resource'.

But do players "sometimes have the edge"? Absolutely not--regardless
what the play-of-the-day is or where it is. The only people who make

that 103% or higher are the ones who win, and most don't. It's

nothing more than a state of mind.

QED.

DEQ'd again.

> Do you see millions of people on VPFree? Millions of people
gamble. Do the math.

> So now players must own computers, be interested in the Internet,
> belong to vpFREE, be consumed by the game, or be concerned about
what a bunch of whining misfits have to say in order to play video

poker inside casinos while knowing what they're doing.

No, just the APers. That's one reason there are so few of them.

That's where you're wrong. Take a poll in the casino like I've done
in the past and you'll find nearly every local player believes he or
she is an AP. I've told you that before but it jabbed you a little
too hard to comment on. And ask how many vpFREE'ers think they play
with and advantage! They wouldn't be there if they didn't.

Of course, just a few lines above you commented that I should know

about ALL the good plays to be an APer. Now, you're stating they
shouldn't have to pursue anything at all. From which side of his
mouth will Robbies next sentence spew forth?

I think you're finally getting it! Being an AP is a state of mind,
nothing more. You were being chastised because you're vocal about
supposedly being a top notch geek about it all, and I'm always glad
to put you in your proper place.
  
> ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called

secondary programming. You think anyone is going to believe that

IGT would build illegal machines?

> > >
> > > There's that selective interpretation of a straight statement
> once again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth,

so he calls it 'illegal"!!

>
> > Just the facts, as usual. See:
> > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section 14.040.3
> where it states "the device must not make a variable secondary
> decision". Is this the type of fact you've been asking for?
>
> Did I mention selective interpretation yet...or more to the

point, an inexperienced knowledge of the meaning in the statute's
wording by little dicky? Only you would call it a 'seconday program'
because you knew that was identified in the regs. Sorry, but you just
made a fool of yourself again. Maybe years ago when you were a
programmer you were taught to think in a straight line without
creating anything you weren't told to create. But in the last 10
years there's been geek-progress made in the real world, only it's
too bad you've not kept up with it. That simple sentence you've
copied and pasted refers to an after-the-fact event--something
clearly not incorporated into the hot/cold cycle parameter. You
should know better, but when the shoe doesn't fit, scramble around
for clouds.

Typical babbling when caught with his pant down. The FACTs once

again refute little Robbies' claims. Anyone suprised?

Translation: You're lost here and don't want to appear as dumb as I
know you are in an area you clearly never kept up with after
retiring. But p;ease don't stop with the denials--I quiver when you
wither.....

> > > > Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

> > > CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.
>
> > Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100

cold cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people

would look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed this

was illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will go

to perpetrate your con.

> I though you prefer to be geek-clear on such an issue! Re-

arranging the wording to fit your hypothesis might work at a bank of
machines loaded with addict AP's, but here you're just being caught
in another of your esacpe-from-reality adventures.

QED. Did you even bother to go read the regulation?

Obviously I did--and long before you, while keeping current on all of
it. And it doesn't matter what the length of a cycle is or isn't.
that's something that would only worry a moron like you. Face it.
You're fare over your head here and all you can do is comeback with
denial, qed's, cons, and show your amazing ability to dig your own
grave.
    

> > > > First I'm a geek, then I'm a nerd, then I can't be either
one. You seem to be having some problems making sense.

> > > You're both, that's for sure. And you're an addict to boot!
  
> > So, now you're even contradicting your own statements. Works

for me.

> You're all 3

But you said "You wander too much to be a true nerd", I guess you
can't even understand your own posts.

Who says you have to be 100% to be labeled a fool?? Esp. woth you--it
just doesn't seem to take much of anything to fill you full of lead.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

> > > Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
> > > Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
> > > Function: noun
> > > Date: 1753
> > > : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms
of
> > > human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION
> >
> > That's the 1st thing I've ever learned from you!
>
> No, You forgot about QED, about Nevada gaming regs, about how VP
> machines really work, about Indian casinos being regulated, about
> Pakistani languages, ... This could go on for a very long time so
> I'll keep it short.

You're right--I should have clarified. It's the first thing I've
learned from you that I was able to absolutely verify by looking at
the source.

I gave you same info for QED. I gave you actual websites for Indian
gaming regulation and Pakistani languages, etc.

That other stuff you mentioned was, is and always will be
a spin-off of your selective interpretations

Lie. I gave you definitive references.

while disregarding clear
fact, needed justifications in order that you don't go bonkers
feeding your degenerate habit, and feel-good misrepresentations

that

those getting clobbered eventually fall prey to.

Only a con man would argue against these kind of facts.

>
> > > > Keep claiming you 'exercize' every day. Oops! ALMOST every
day.
> > I'm guessing that's the walks to and from the addict joints.
> > >
> > > Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise

bike.

> >
> > Oops! How could I be so wrong.....
>
> Easy, it's business as usual.

Exactly. It's your lying in the face of being embarrassed over your
video-poker body, those man-tits,

Is that why you fastasize about me so much?

> > > believe you have any idea whether someone is making the

correct

> > > holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at

all.

> >
> > Because I'm an expert at knowing the computer-perfect holds in
> every game I play within my strategies.

> So you claim, but haven't shown us any reason to believe it.

What consiitutes that--the same thing you show you know that stupid
one-eyed game with?

LMAO.

Remember, I'm a public figure with a reputation
of being the best, so knowing what I'm doing is a standard part of

my

life. It comes natural. You're a nobody with nothing to lose no
matter how stupid you are or sound. Add it up.

zero+zero = zero. QED.

> > Anyone who says that it's not likely for someone to hold those
plays inside when not playing (or, snicker snicker, practicing

them)

all the time has an inferior brain.
>
> Now you admit to practicing when just a couple of day ago you
> belittled the use of winpoker and VPSM. My, my.

Zziinnnggggg....right over (or was it through this time too?) your
pea-brain again! Continue to use winpoker or that other nonsense

for

practice and I'll continue to belittle you. The best part of that

is

you should be using every one of those hands you play at home in
your "long-term" picture, but miracle of miracles, it just doesn't
fit the make believe scenario you choose to live.

Chuckle, chuckle. Robbies claims to know expert play ... but never
practices. Does he really think anyone believes this crap?

>
> > I've never watched anyone play any of the DW/JW games because
those are useless to me. And of course you'd deny my having

monitored

> > Jean's play. If you didn't, it'd make it tougher to argue.
>
> Nope, just sounds kind of fishy that you would belittle her and

yet

> find the time to watch her. Sounds more like jealous envy.

Wake up, McFLY!! Sometimes experience does have it's value.

Yup, practicing on winpoker or FVP clearly proves this point.

I never
got on her case until I watched her. It was all a part of my book &
expose' of these bazookas--just as going to a Bob Dancer class and
disrupting it with common sense was befoe he knew who I was. Better
fish somewhere else--they're not biting here!

The jealousy rolls off in waves.

> > > > Casinos always have the edge.
> > >
> > > Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me for
not pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players
> sometimes have "the edge". QED.

> > Regardless of the silly qed here, this is an important
> misconception that needs correction. You and all the other make-
believe AP's SHOULD know where and what ALL the local positive
opportunities are at all times.
>
> BS. Why should I track hundreds of possible plays when I can only
> play a few. It is poor time management to say the least.

Here's a hint: THE BEST AP's only play THE BEST plays!

OK, I'm not the best APer. I have no problem with that. I'm not
trying to be the best. I'd rather have the time for other pursuits.

Giving up and
edge now...is that what you're admitting to?

Could be, how could I know if I don't know what I'm missing. However,
I was one of the few who played the $ FPDW at ACD for it's entirely,
so I don't miss them all.

Or is it just plain
laziness.

Priorities.

Or part of the overall lie about the AP??

There is no lie. It's a mathematical FACT. Anyone who'd deny simple
math is a LAF.

> > Do you see millions of people on VPFree? Millions of people
> gamble. Do the math.

> > So now players must own computers, be interested in the

Internet,

> > belong to vpFREE, be consumed by the game, or be concerned

about

> what a bunch of whining misfits have to say in order to play

video

poker inside casinos while knowing what they're doing.

> No, just the APers. That's one reason there are so few of them.

That's where you're wrong. Take a poll in the casino like I've done
in the past and you'll find nearly every local player believes he

or

she is an AP.

Of course you have. Is that why you've never heard people say the
payouts are controlled externally? These idiotic lies are easy to
knock down. And, once again, no one cares if people think they are an
APer, it only matters whether their actions are those of an APer.

I've told you that before but it jabbed you a little
too hard to comment on. And ask how many vpFREE'ers think they play
with and advantage! They wouldn't be there if they didn't.

Many have admitted that they DON'T play with an advantage. I see that
reading every VPfree post hasn't increased your comprehension. Many
have admitted they only try to limit the cost of trips. Many have
admitted to playing negative games like JOB and DDB because that is
what they prefer. These are not APers.

> Of course, just a few lines above you commented that I should

know

about ALL the good plays to be an APer. Now, you're stating they
shouldn't have to pursue anything at all. From which side of his
mouth will Robbies next sentence spew forth?

I think you're finally getting it! Being an AP is a state of mind,
nothing more.

Lie. It's a set of actions.

You were being chastised because you're vocal about
supposedly being a top notch geek about it all, and I'm always glad
to put you in your proper place.

Looks like you failed again.

> ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called
> secondary programming. You think anyone is going to believe that
IGT would build illegal machines?
> > > >
> > > > There's that selective interpretation of a straight

statement

> > once again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the truth,
so he calls it 'illegal"!!
> >
> > > Just the facts, as usual. See:
> > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section

14.040.3

> > where it states "the device must not make a variable secondary
> > decision". Is this the type of fact you've been asking for?
> >
> > Did I mention selective interpretation yet...or more to the
point, an inexperienced knowledge of the meaning in the statute's
wording by little dicky? Only you would call it a 'seconday

program'

because you knew that was identified in the regs. Sorry, but you

just

made a fool of yourself again. Maybe years ago when you were a
programmer you were taught to think in a straight line without
creating anything you weren't told to create. But in the last 10
years there's been geek-progress made in the real world, only it's
too bad you've not kept up with it. That simple sentence you've
copied and pasted refers to an after-the-fact event--something
clearly not incorporated into the hot/cold cycle parameter. You
should know better, but when the shoe doesn't fit, scramble around
for clouds.

> Typical babbling when caught with his pant down. The FACTs once
again refute little Robbies' claims. Anyone suprised?

Translation: You're lost here and don't want to appear as dumb as I
know you are in an area you clearly never kept up with after
retiring. But p;ease don't stop with the denials--I quiver when you
wither.....

LMAO. Did we see Robbie quote anything from the regs that dispute
what I've been saying all along? Nope. Only his normal babbling when
faced with absolute proof of my statements.

> > > > > Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.

> > > > CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.
> >
> > > Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100
cold cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people
> would look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed this
was illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will go
> to perpetrate your con.

> > I though you prefer to be geek-clear on such an issue! Re-
arranging the wording to fit your hypothesis might work at a bank

of

machines loaded with addict AP's, but here you're just being caught
in another of your esacpe-from-reality adventures.

> QED. Did you even bother to go read the regulation?

Obviously I did

Is that why you can't quote a single line from the regs?

--and long before you, while keeping current on all of
it. And it doesn't matter what the length of a cycle is or isn't.

That's true, because your mythical "programmed" cycles would be
illegal.

that's something that would only worry a moron like you. Face it.
You're fare over your head here and all you can do is comeback with
denial, qed's, cons, and show your amazing ability to dig your own
grave.

You forgot to mention my ability to document proof of my statements.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > Main Entry: an·thro·po·mor·phism
> > > > Pronunciation: -"fi-z&m
> > > > Function: noun
> > > > Date: 1753
> > > > : an interpretation of what is not human or personal in

terms

> of
> > > > human or personal characteristics : HUMANIZATION
> > >
> > > That's the 1st thing I've ever learned from you!
> >
> > No, You forgot about QED, about Nevada gaming regs, about how

VP

> > machines really work, about Indian casinos being regulated,

about

> > Pakistani languages, ... This could go on for a very long time

so

> > I'll keep it short.
>
> You're right--I should have clarified. It's the first thing I've
> learned from you that I was able to absolutely verify by looking

at

> the source.

I gave you same info for QED. I gave you actual websites for Indian
gaming regulation and Pakistani languages, etc.

QED:--Made no sense. Indian gaming: Selective reading of the regs,
and you didn't even understand what you were trying to say. Pakistani
languages: They are and have always been called dialects of the
Pakistani language. Etc.: I think you see the pattern. You're a make-
up artist!

> That other stuff you mentioned was, is and always will be
> a spin-off of your selective interpretations

Lie. I gave you definitive references.

Take off that dunce cap I crowned you with then try again.

> > > > Wrong, approx. one hour split between weights and exercise
bike.
> > >
> > > Oops! How could I be so wrong.....
> >
> > Easy, it's business as usual.
>
> Exactly. It's your lying in the face of being embarrassed over

your video-poker body, those man-tits,

Is that why you fastasize about me so much?

Could be. Since I'm the only one to show and prove facts here, I'll
keep you on the edge of your seat.
  

> > > > believe you have any idea whether someone is making the
correct
> > > > holds. In fact, it's doubtful you ever stood behind Jean at
all.
> > >
> > > Because I'm an expert at knowing the computer-perfect holds

in

> > every game I play within my strategies.
>
> > So you claim, but haven't shown us any reason to believe it.
>
> What consiitutes that--the same thing you show you know that

stupid one-eyed game with?

LMAO.

Well...

> Remember, I'm a public figure with a reputation
> of being the best, so knowing what I'm doing is a standard part

of my life. It comes natural. You're a nobody with nothing to lose no

> matter how stupid you are or sound. Add it up.

zero+zero = zero. QED.

I knew you'd get perturbed by that undeniable truth! Bingo again!
  

> > > Anyone who says that it's not likely for someone to hold

those

> plays inside when not playing (or, snicker snicker, practicing
them)
> all the time has an inferior brain.
> >
> > Now you admit to practicing when just a couple of day ago you
> > belittled the use of winpoker and VPSM. My, my.
>
> Zziinnnggggg....right over (or was it through this time too?)

your

> pea-brain again! Continue to use winpoker or that other nonsense
for
> practice and I'll continue to belittle you. The best part of that
is
> you should be using every one of those hands you play at home in
> your "long-term" picture, but miracle of miracles, it just

doesn't

> fit the make believe scenario you choose to live.

Chuckle, chuckle. Robbies claims to know expert play ... but never
practices. Does he really think anyone believes this crap?

Some don't need to practice. Are we playing basketball--or a simple
casino game?? Get with it.

> > > I've never watched anyone play any of the DW/JW games because
> those are useless to me. And of course you'd deny my having
monitored
> > > Jean's play. If you didn't, it'd make it tougher to argue.
> >
> > Nope, just sounds kind of fishy that you would belittle her and
yet
> > find the time to watch her. Sounds more like jealous envy.
>
> Wake up, McFLY!! Sometimes experience does have it's value.

Yup, practicing on winpoker or FVP clearly proves this point.

Imagine if i had given Jim Wolf my permission to use my
name....Imagine if MY name were on that FVP instead of your hero's!
HAHA! You'd be beside yourself for 2 lifetimes! Lucky for you I don't
need to get involved in such crap!

> I never
> got on her case until I watched her. It was all a part of my book

&

> expose' of these bazookas--just as going to a Bob Dancer class

and

> disrupting it with common sense was befoe he knew who I was.

Better

> fish somewhere else--they're not biting here!

The jealousy rolls off in waves.

How does that happen when the roller isn't fat?

>
> > > > > Casinos always have the edge.
> > > >
> > > > Lie. And, wasn't it little Robbie that just chastised me

for

> not pursuing a 103% play. He clearly knows that that players
> > sometimes have "the edge". QED.
>
> > > Regardless of the silly qed here, this is an important
> > misconception that needs correction. You and all the other make-
> believe AP's SHOULD know where and what ALL the local positive
> opportunities are at all times.
> >
> > BS. Why should I track hundreds of possible plays when I can

only

> > play a few. It is poor time management to say the least.
>
> Here's a hint: THE BEST AP's only play THE BEST plays!

OK, I'm not the best APer. I have no problem with that. I'm not
trying to be the best. I'd rather have the time for other pursuits.

Like going home and rushing out to the Injun joint to get a fix.

> Giving up and
> edge now...is that what you're admitting to?

Could be, how could I know if I don't know what I'm missing.

However,

I was one of the few who played the $ FPDW at ACD for it's

entirely, so I don't miss them all.

> Or is it just plain
> laziness.

Priorities.

> Or part of the overall lie about the AP??

There is no lie. It's a mathematical FACT. Anyone who'd deny simple
math is a LAF.

> > > Do you see millions of people on VPFree? Millions of people
> > gamble. Do the math.
>
> > > So now players must own computers, be interested in the
Internet,
> > > belong to vpFREE, be consumed by the game, or be concerned
about
> > what a bunch of whining misfits have to say in order to play
video
> poker inside casinos while knowing what they're doing.
>
> > No, just the APers. That's one reason there are so few of them.
>
> That's where you're wrong. Take a poll in the casino like I've

done

> in the past and you'll find nearly every local player believes he
or
> she is an AP.

Of course you have. Is that why you've never heard people say the
payouts are controlled externally? These idiotic lies are easy to
knock down. And, once again, no one cares if people think they are

an APer, it only matters whether their actions are those of an APer.

I don't waste time yakking about their complaints--you get all that
and more reading vpFREE--which I always do by the way. It gives me
plety of material!

> I've told you that before but it jabbed you a little
> too hard to comment on. And ask how many vpFREE'ers think they

play

> with and advantage! They wouldn't be there if they didn't.

Many have admitted that they DON'T play with an advantage. I see

that

reading every VPfree post hasn't increased your comprehension. Many
have admitted they only try to limit the cost of trips. Many have
admitted to playing negative games like JOB and DDB because that is
what they prefer. These are not APers.

They're all AP's. They just downsize their hat a little when they
report of the beating they took when they expected to win because of
what people like you and the Queen tell them. You're only saving
grace over her is you didn't charge them anything for it, and you
don't follow up your BS with shameless self-promotion and
advertising. But reading your nonsense is price enough.

> > Of course, just a few lines above you commented that I should
know
> about ALL the good plays to be an APer. Now, you're stating they
> shouldn't have to pursue anything at all. From which side of his
> mouth will Robbies next sentence spew forth?
>
> I think you're finally getting it! Being an AP is a state of

mind, nothing more.

Lie. It's a set of actions.

It's all performed in a world of make believe, and you've got your
phantom bucks figured out before you go. You just can't deposit the
stuff in the real world.

> You were being chastised because you're vocal about
> supposedly being a top notch geek about it all, and I'm always

glad

> to put you in your proper place.

Looks like you failed again.

Take another look.

>
> > ROTFLMAO. That would be against the law. It's called
> > secondary programming. You think anyone is going to believe

that

> IGT would build illegal machines?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's that selective interpretation of a straight
statement
> > > once again! What'd I tell you! The nerd can't accept the

truth,

> so he calls it 'illegal"!!
> > >
> > > > Just the facts, as usual. See:
> > > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf --- section
14.040.3
> > > where it states "the device must not make a variable

secondary

> > > decision". Is this the type of fact you've been asking for?
> > >
> > > Did I mention selective interpretation yet...or more to the
> point, an inexperienced knowledge of the meaning in the statute's
> wording by little dicky? Only you would call it a 'seconday
program'
> because you knew that was identified in the regs. Sorry, but you
just
> made a fool of yourself again. Maybe years ago when you were a
> programmer you were taught to think in a straight line without
> creating anything you weren't told to create. But in the last 10
> years there's been geek-progress made in the real world, only

it's

> too bad you've not kept up with it. That simple sentence you've
> copied and pasted refers to an after-the-fact event--something
> clearly not incorporated into the hot/cold cycle parameter. You
> should know better, but when the shoe doesn't fit, scramble

around

> for clouds.
>
> > Typical babbling when caught with his pant down. The FACTs once
> again refute little Robbies' claims. Anyone suprised?
>
> Translation: You're lost here and don't want to appear as dumb as

I

> know you are in an area you clearly never kept up with after
> retiring. But please don't stop with the denials--I quiver when

you

> wither.....

LMAO. Did we see Robbie quote anything from the regs that dispute
what I've been saying all along? Nope. Only his normal babbling

when faced with absolute proof of my statements.

The regs you put up cleanly dispute your selective interpretation and
any sensible person interested would see it. Like I've said, you're
your own worst enemy and you don't even see it.

>
> > > > > > Just like I said, CCC is just a long cold cycle.
>
> > > > > CCC is 3 short--or long--individual cycles. Live with it.
> > >
> > > > Since no one could tell the difference between 3, 10 or 100
> cold cycles of some made up length, I think most rationale people
> > would look at it as ONE cold cycle. Of course, I just showed

this

> was illegal which demonstrates quite clearly the extent you will

go

> > to perpetrate your con.
>
> > > I though you prefer to be geek-clear on such an issue! Re-
> arranging the wording to fit your hypothesis might work at a bank
of
> machines loaded with addict AP's, but here you're just being

caught

> in another of your esacpe-from-reality adventures.
>
> > QED. Did you even bother to go read the regulation?
>
> Obviously I did

Is that why you can't quote a single line from the regs?

> --and long before you, while keeping current on all of
> it. And it doesn't matter what the length of a cycle is or isn't.

That's true, because your mythical "programmed" cycles would be
illegal.

In your mind little dicky. in your mind (home of the pea-brain!)

> that's something that would only worry a moron like you. Face it.
> You're far over your head here and all you can do is comeback

with

> denial, qed's, cons, and show your amazing ability to dig your

own

> grave.

You forgot to mention my ability to document proof of my statements.

Then document. Never once has there been such an item from you.

···

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