vpFREE2 Forums

El Cortez Downgrade

#61

jackessiebabe wrote:

Here's the "gambling is more noble the way I do it" refrain

again.

Really Tom, I can't imagine what I wrote that gave you that idea.
You are gratitously ascribing something to my post which I never
intended.

Maybe I inferred too much from "a "blood-sucking parasite" whose MO
was to greedily take everything the casino offered w/o giving anything
back in return." I took that as a value judgement.

I endeavor not to be too greedy. As my wise husband has
often said, "Take some and leave some".

I take that as a value judgement, too.

Would you be ashamed to play at such a big advantage that

you couldn't give it all back?

Have you been sniffing some bad stuff? What the heck are you
talking about?

You just wrote that you tried not to be too greedy. Isn't that
consistent with being ashamed of winning too much?

I still don't believe for one minute, that I fit the definition of a
blood-sucking parasite, which has attached itself to the casino's
vital organs.

If that's true, and if you play at a positive expected value, that's
just a difference of degree.

I abhor being
being defined as a parasite.

If you play at a positive expected value, how are you not one? How is
a "flea" not just a "mini-parasite?" And, if it's moral to be a
"flea," why not go all the way and be a "parasite?" Why is it more
moral to play at a .5% advantage than it is to play at a 1.5%
advantage? If you can't answer the question, maybe Bill Coleman, whom
you say "is quite adept at defending his own point of view," and who
has explicitly said he believes this, can answer it. I just don't see
the difference in principle between the two.

Do you really not see the contradictions in what you wrote? You
express disapproval of being greedy and then you say that you believe
in playing at as big an advantage as possible. How can you do both?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

#62

Here's the "gambling is more noble the way I do it" refrain

again.

jackessiebabe wrote:

Really Tom, I can't imagine what I wrote that gave you that idea.

I wanted to add a summation to my previous post:

It's analogous to you saying that you have 2 apples in your left hand
and 2 apples in your right hand and then expressing shock that anyone
would say that you had said that you have 4 apples.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

#63

whose MO was to greedily take everything the casino offered w/o
giving anything back in return." I took that as a value judgement.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

Maybe I inferred too much from "a "blood-sucking parasite"

================================================
Perhaps it was a value judgement, but it wasn't MINE. I was
paraphrasing what another poster had written when describing "Fleas".

Furthermore, I posted that I didn't wish to have that repellent
description applied to me. Never did I say that I applied it to
others (pros or o/w) who were playing on a higher level than I was.

Babe wrote: I endeavor not to be too greedy. As my wise

husband has often said, "Take some and leave some".

Tom wrote:I take that as a value judgement, too.

=================================================
It IS a value judgement, but NOT as you've taken it. I was referring
to being careful not to ask for too many comps or perks in relation
to the amount of play that I've given to a casino. It had NOTHING
whatever to do with the amount of the wager, the EV of the
advantage, or the occupation of the person placing the wager.

You just wrote that you tried not to be too greedy. Isn't that

consistent with being ashamed of winning too much?

Goodness no! See my statement above. I'm more than happy to tell
all my friends about some of my great wins and successful trips.

Babe wrote:I still don't believe for one minute, that I fit the

definition of a blood-sucking parasite, which has attached itself to
the casino's vital organs.

Tom wrote: If that's true, and if you play at a positive

expected value, that's just a difference of degree.

Or, as I clearly stated in my last post, a difference in semantics.
I think that it's both impolite and insulting to refer to someone as
as a parasite. I refuse to identify with that description.

If you play at a positive expected value, how are you not one?

====================================================
Because I am still giving the casino a shot at my bankroll. And
since I play a LOT, when in I'm in Nevada, they have every
opportunity to get their money back even after I've had some good
wins.

Despite the fact that I play the best games available, have been
playing many for years, and practice on my laptop like a school kid
before every trip, the casino still puts a hit on my bankroll from
time to time.

How is a "flea" not just a "mini-parasite?"

===================================================
Hmmmm....."mini"- parasite. Now that sounds MUCH better! Maybe
even cute and cuddly! {(O:

And, if it's moral to be a "flea," why not go all the way and

be a "parasite?"

I do believe that it is absolutely moral to be a "flea" as I
described a flea in my first post. A post to which you evidently
took much umbrage.

In my perception, MORALITY has nothing whatever to do with this
discussion. I find nothing immoral about having a tiny advantage, a
huge advantage or no advantage at all over the casino. How did
morality get dragged into this thread anyway? I certainly didn't
mention it.

IMO, if you are not harming another human being, anything that you
wish to do is moral. I do NOT pass judgement on the lifestyles or
morality of any person who is conducting him/her self within the
laws of our country.

Why is it more moral to play at a .5% advantage than it is to

play at a 1.5% advantage?

It's NOT!!! How many times do I have to repeat this? I have NOTHING
against pros even if they can squeeze out an 8.0% advantage. More
power to them! As I said before, a couple of my best friends are
pros. Nothing makes me happier than when I hear that they've had
some great winning sessions.

If you can't answer the question, maybe Bill Coleman,

whom you say "is quite adept at defending his own point of view,"
and who has explicitly said he believes this, can answer it. I just
don't see the difference in principle between the two.

Apparently you have some issues with Bill, that have nothing
whatever to do with me. Why don't you take it up with Bill, instead
of chiding me for things that I haven't said and don't believe?

Do you really not see the contradictions in what you wrote?

========================================================
That is correct. I see NO contradictions whatever. Nor do I think
that there are any. Unless, of course, you persist in
misinterpreting what I've written, even after I've explained it.

You express disapproval of being greedy and then you say

that you believe in playing at as big an advantage as possible. How
can you do both?

Please do read the 4th paragraph above, if you still have any doubt
about what I meant regarding greed.

~Babe~

#64

worldbefree22001 wrote:

"We're of, by, and for losers."

Well, now you're going too far. Obviously, casinos have a lot that
attracts people, which they can truthfully advertise. How about
"losing is more fun at the El Cortez?"

#65

your left handand 2 apples in your right hand and then expressing
shock that anyone would say that you had said that you have 4 apples.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

It's analogous to you saying that you have 2 apples in

===========================================
Really Tom, you must have heard that I flunked high school math.
How very unkind of you to bring that up publicly.

Of course, we all KNOW that 2+2=5!!

It's very unchivalrous of you to try to trick me this way.

~Babe~

P.S. I re-read my first post. I can see why you interpreted
my "greedy" comment as you did. I failed big-time in making clear
what I meant by greedy. I hope that you do understand now. I have
absolutely no axe to grind with pros/rec players or any other
devotees of VP.

#66

jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com> wrote: --- Hello all my beloved VP Free members:

At this moment I have so many fleas, my life's blood has been sucked out of
  my body......Wow, what a boring, useless, trite conversation. Holiday greetings to all...
  Rod

_ HHHHeRi_._,_.___ Messages in this topic (65) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
  Messages
  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

    MARKETPLACE

···

---------------------------------
  Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
    
---------------------------------
    
---------------------------------
  Fed Lowers Rates Again - $270,000 Mortgage for $1,498/Mo. No Credit Check Needed No Credit Check Needed - Estimate New Payment.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

      Recent Activity
    
      34
  New Members

Visit Your Group
      Y! Sports for TV
  Access it for free
  Get Fantasy Sports
  stats on your TV.

    Yahoo! Finance
  It's Now Personal
  Guides, news,
  advice & more.

    Ads on Yahoo!
  Learn more now.
  Reach customers
  searching for you.

  .

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

#67

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, rod carlon <vprod1@...> wrote:

jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@...> wrote: --- Hello all my
beloved VP Free members:At this moment I have so many fleas, my life's
blood has been sucked out of my body......Wow, what a boring, useless,
trite conversation. Holiday greetings to all...
Rod

···

==============================================================
Happy Holidays to you also, Rod! Please do brighten our evening by
posting some witty and informative material of your own. Surely, you
can think of something......can't you? Certainly, you must have
posted some interesting or helpful topic recently....haven't you?

BTW, in case you're unfamiliar with poor netiquette, it is very bad
form to use another's address, while posting you own words.

~Babe~

#68

I wrote:

====================================================

If you play at a positive expected value, how are you not [a parasite]?

====================================================

Babe wrote:

Because I am still giving the casino a shot at my bankroll.

You really don't see the contradictions in what you're saying, do you?
Would playing at an 8% advantage constitute giving the casino a shot
at your bankroll? If so, then everyone gives the casino a shot at
their bankroll and the subject is moot, since no one can be a parasite
and if not, then you're saying that playing at an 8% advantage, with
which, as you say below, you have no problem, constitutes being a
parasite, which, as you say below, is an "impolite and insulting" way
to refer to someone. Which is it?

Babe wrote:

In my perception, MORALITY has nothing whatever to do with this
discussion. I find nothing immoral about having a tiny advantage, a
huge advantage or no advantage at all over the casino. How did
morality get dragged into this thread anyway? I certainly didn't
mention it.

Just because you didn't mention that exact word? Making value
judgements incorporates morality.

Babe wrote (a value judgement):

I think that it's both impolite and insulting to refer to someone as
as a parasite.

and

I have NOTHING
against pros even if they can squeeze out an 8.0% advantage.

Are you really saying those two statements aren't contradictory?

Maybe some definitions are in order here. If a pro who plays with an
8% advantage isn't a parasite, who is? How do you define "parasite"
in this context, if not someone who drains the casino of money, which,
as you've said, you have no problem with? If you have no problem with
it, why is it "impolite and insulting to refer to someone as a
parasite?" How can both be true?

#69

Babe asked: Would you be kind enough to tell those of us that stay at EC
from time
to time, what the new games will be?

The list of classes may be found on www.bobdancer.com. The "new" games
(some of which existed on a few machines previously) are 9/6 Jacks, 9/7
Triple Double Bonus, 9/4/4 Deuces Bonus, and 9/5 Super Double Bonus.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#70

Babe wrote: Hmmmm.......This is the SECOND time I've asked the question.
What's the over and under on whether an answer will be forthcoming?

There are periods of time that I'm away from my computer for a few days
in a row. . . And then I catch up all at once (like is happening now).
Someone not answering a post for 2.5 hours (the time between your first
and second post) is hardly reason for a comment like the above.

The answer to your question is I don't know. Getting straight answers
out of El Cortez management is not always an easy matter.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#71

Jeri wrote: Love your program. However, I am a devoted Mac user. I would
so happily buy a Mac version!

Don't hold your breath for a Mac version. It's not in the cards. Many
users, however, have found they can use the PC version of VPW. The exact
parameters needed on your Mac, I don't know. But with the free trial
offer available, it's possible to check it out before you buy it.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#72

A few corrections to the database.

1. the $10 and $25 9/6 Jacks have a 239-coin straight flush as does
the $5 game on the same machine. At least one other $5 9/6 Jacks game
has a 250-coin straight flush. .

2. It requires $2 to receive a point 9/6 Jacks from $1 to $25
denominations, not the $2.50 rate the database says. According to the
booth, the rate varies between $1 and $2.50. Perhaps the single NSU game
(I didn't find it, although I didn't look too hard) has that rate.

3. More importantly, it requires 200 points to earn a dollar in
cashback rather than the 400 points it says in the database. For 9/6
Jacks, this makes the slot club worth 0.25% rather than the reported
0.10%. This makes a big difference on Triple Point days --- of which
today was one.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=4641017/grpspId=1705065732/m
sgId=82080/stime=1197958173/nc1=4767085/nc2=4507179/nc3=3848643>

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

#73

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...>
wrote:

>>>>>>>Maybe I inferred too much from "a "blood-sucking parasite"
whose MO was to greedily take everything the casino offered w/o
giving anything back in return." I took that as a value judgement.

Perhaps it was a value judgement, but it wasn't MINE. I was
paraphrasing what another poster had written when

describing "Fleas".

Furthermore, I posted that I didn't wish to have that repellent
description applied to me. Never did I say that I applied it to
others (pros or o/w) who were playing on a higher level than I was.

>>>>>Babe wrote: I endeavor not to be too greedy. As my wise
husband has often said, "Take some and leave some".

>>>>>Tom wrote:I take that as a value judgement, too.

It IS a value judgement, but NOT as you've taken it. I was

referring

to being careful not to ask for too many comps or perks in relation
to the amount of play that I've given to a casino. It had NOTHING
whatever to do with the amount of the wager, the EV of the
advantage, or the occupation of the person placing the wager.

>>>>>You just wrote that you tried not to be too greedy. Isn't that
consistent with being ashamed of winning too much?

Goodness no! See my statement above. I'm more than happy to tell
all my friends about some of my great wins and successful trips.

>>>>>Babe wrote:I still don't believe for one minute, that I fit

the

definition of a blood-sucking parasite, which has attached itself

to

the casino's vital organs.

>>>>>>Tom wrote: If that's true, and if you play at a positive
expected value, that's just a difference of degree.

Or, as I clearly stated in my last post, a difference in

semantics.

I think that it's both impolite and insulting to refer to someone

as

as a parasite. I refuse to identify with that description.

>>>>>>If you play at a positive expected value, how are you not

one?

====================================================
Because I am still giving the casino a shot at my bankroll. And
since I play a LOT, when in I'm in Nevada, they have every
opportunity to get their money back even after I've had some good
wins.

Despite the fact that I play the best games available, have been
playing many for years, and practice on my laptop like a school kid
before every trip, the casino still puts a hit on my bankroll from
time to time.

>>>>>>>>How is a "flea" not just a "mini-parasite?"

Hmmmm....."mini"- parasite. Now that sounds MUCH better! Maybe
even cute and cuddly! {(O:

>>>>>>>And, if it's moral to be a "flea," why not go all the way

and

be a "parasite?"

I do believe that it is absolutely moral to be a "flea" as I
described a flea in my first post. A post to which you evidently
took much umbrage.

In my perception, MORALITY has nothing whatever to do with this
discussion. I find nothing immoral about having a tiny advantage,

a

huge advantage or no advantage at all over the casino. How did
morality get dragged into this thread anyway? I certainly didn't
mention it.

IMO, if you are not harming another human being, anything that you
wish to do is moral. I do NOT pass judgement on the lifestyles or
morality of any person who is conducting him/her self within the
laws of our country.

>>>>>>>Why is it more moral to play at a .5% advantage than it is

to

play at a 1.5% advantage?

It's NOT!!! How many times do I have to repeat this? I have

NOTHING

against pros even if they can squeeze out an 8.0% advantage. More
power to them! As I said before, a couple of my best friends are
pros. Nothing makes me happier than when I hear that they've had
some great winning sessions.

>>>>>>>If you can't answer the question, maybe Bill Coleman,
whom you say "is quite adept at defending his own point of view,"
and who has explicitly said he believes this, can answer it. I

just

don't see the difference in principle between the two.

Apparently you have some issues with Bill, that have nothing
whatever to do with me. Why don't you take it up with Bill,

instead

of chiding me for things that I haven't said and don't believe?

>>>>>>>>Do you really not see the contradictions in what you

wrote?

========================================================
That is correct. I see NO contradictions whatever. Nor do I think
that there are any. Unless, of course, you persist in
misinterpreting what I've written, even after I've explained it.

>>>>>>>>You express disapproval of being greedy and then you say
that you believe in playing at as big an advantage as possible.

How

can you do both?

Please do read the 4th paragraph above, if you still have any doubt
about what I meant regarding greed.

~Babe~

Personally, I think of myself as a rapist. I want to go into a
casino and rape them of everything they have. Whatever they have I
want to be mine. They feel the same about me so it's all good.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@> wrote:

#74

I'll send something out to LVA shortly, but I'm curious if other
people are being deluged with exhortations to buy VPW from Las Vegas
Advisor/Curtis. In the last 12 hours, I've received 8 of these emails.

- H.

#75

I'll send something out to LVA shortly, but I'm curious if other
people are being deluged with exhortations to buy VPW from Las Vegas
Advisor/Curtis. In the last 12 hours, I've received 8 of these

emails.

- H.

I just receivd the 16th add for VPW and I already own it.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

#76

Ya think? Dude you are a trip. It feels
like you're on tilt a little. Google sarcasm and
take a 24 break from posting. It'll do ya good.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

worldbefree22001 wrote:

>"We're of, by, and for losers."

Well, now you're going too far. Obviously, casinos have a lot that
attracts people, which they can truthfully advertise. How about
"losing is more fun at the El Cortez?"

#77

Thanks for your answer, Bob. As I expected we will likely not see TITO
10/6DDB, 10/7DB, NSUD or KBJW. However, adding the games that you
mentioned, in TITO boxes, will be a great improvement over the current
TITO inventory.

As for my snide remark, you are absolutely right. In going for a
smile, I took a cheap shot. Please accept my apology.
~Babe~

···

===========================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote:

There are periods of time that I'm away from my computer for a few
days in a row. . . And then I catch up all at once (like is happening
now). Someone not answering a post for 2.5 hours (the time between
your first and second post) is hardly reason for a comment like the
above.

#78

Babe wrote: Thanks for your answer, Bob. As I expected we will likely
not see TITO
10/6DDB, 10/7DB, NSUD or KBJW. As for my snide remark, you are
absolutely right. In going for a
smile, I took a cheap shot. Please accept my apology.

I responded too quickly. Both NSU and 10/7 DB will be taught and should
be on the machines. 10/6 will not be. Whether or not KBJW will be on
these machines is doubtful. I know the location of the machines, but
haven't seen the machines themselves because currently there are slot
machines there. I suspect they will be Game Kings with TITO, but I can't
be sure until they actually show up.

Your apology is accepted and appreciated.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#79

Harry wrote: I'll send something out to LVA shortly, but I'm curious if
other people are being deluged with exhortations to buy VPW from Las
Vegas Advisor/Curtis. In the last 12 hours, I've received 8 of these
emails.

I know nothing about this. I forwarded a few of these notes to Anthony
Curtis and requested he fix the situation. In the meantime, all I can do
is apologize to one and all.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#80

A few corrections to the database.

1. the $10 and $25 9/6 Jacks have a 239-coin straight flush as

does

the $5 game on the same machine. At least one other $5 9/6 Jacks

game

has a 250-coin straight flush. .

2. It requires $2 to receive a point 9/6 Jacks from $1 to $25
denominations, not the $2.50 rate the database says. According to

the

booth, the rate varies between $1 and $2.50. Perhaps the single

NSU game

(I didn't find it, although I didn't look too hard) has that rate.

3. More importantly, it requires 200 points to earn a dollar in
cashback rather than the 400 points it says in the database. For

9/6

Jacks, this makes the slot club worth 0.25% rather than the

reported

0.10%. This makes a big difference on Triple Point days --- of

which

today was one.

Bob Dancer

Good info!

Here are some RoR and EV figs for the triple point days.

Assuming no tips, no play errors, and no tax consequences, and
assuming no positive perks, someone who plays $1 JOB at 600 hands/hr
only on triple point days would earn just under $9/hr. He or she
would need a little more than a $71,000 bankroll to have a longterm
RoR of 1%. If the player plans to tip $40 for a royal, the bankroll
requirement climbs to just over $75,000.

A $5 JOB player (on the 250-coin SF game) could expect to earn
$44/hr. But the bankroll required for a 1% RoR is a sobering
$357,000. To allow for a $100 tip for RF's, you'd need to add
$10,000 to the 1% RoR bankroll.

--Dunbar

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bdancer@...> wrote: