vpFREE2 Forums

Euros hiding under our skirt again

The normal answer to all opposition when face with diminishing
dignity on a public forum. There is no such thing as 'racism' when
facing the enemy. That's an ACLU faggot-type response as they come to
the rescue of poor forlorn rag-tops; I don't lie to you--regardless
of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of the world;
And a fraud? Well, you and your slide rule couldn't support any of
that sour grapes-type attitude, and you certainly are left out in the
cold on everything you attempted so far. Bottom line? The statement
is true.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> I'm a pro and I have all the answers, so you came to the right
place.

No. You are a racist, a liar and a fraud. That has been proven time
and again. This political discussion has also added warmonger and
psycho to your list of admirable traits.

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

wrote:

>
> > I'm a pro and I have all the answers, so you came to the right
> place.
>
> No. You are a racist, a liar and a fraud. That has been proven

time

> and again. This political discussion has also added warmonger and
> psycho to your list of admirable traits.

The normal answer to all opposition when face with diminishing
dignity on a public forum. There is no such thing as 'racism' when
facing the enemy.

All Muslims are not your enemy, however you refer to them as if they
were. That is racism.

What about your previous remarks about Indians?

That's an ACLU faggot-type response as they come to
the rescue of poor forlorn rag-tops;

Racism against gays?

I don't lie to you--regardless
of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of the world;

You have lied many times.

And a fraud? Well, you and your slide rule couldn't support any of
that sour grapes-type attitude,

The math supports everything I've said (and many others) about VP.
Your attempts to create a system that isn't supported by the math is
what makes you a fraud.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

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

> The normal answer to all opposition when face with diminishing
> dignity on a public forum. There is no such thing as 'racism'

when facing the enemy.

All Muslims are not your enemy, however you refer to them as if

they were. That is racism.

Here's a scenario for a liberal muslim-lover like you: You board an
airplane for London. You look up, and there are 6 young Arabs
sitting nearby with solemn looks on their faces. Could be praying,
could be scheming. No one really knows at this point. Tell me, just
how do YOU feel about your flight to the UK right about now? If you
were more educated about the muslim religion, you'd know that they
stick together more than any other on earth. Most of the ones around
the world either hate us, want us all dead, or wish we'd disappear--
and it's been like that for decades and in some cases, centuries.
More than half the ones in this country are irritated by the USA.

What about your previous remarks about Indians?

> That's an ACLU faggot-type response as they come to
> the rescue of poor forlorn rag-tops;

Racism against gays?

And tell me if gays aren't mega-racist against normal people! I
don't like them nor appreciate how many of them try to use that race
card all the time. Just take a look at the ACLU's record of
complaints and you'll see what I mean when a bunch of queers get
together. I have 2 friends that are gay, and I treat them with
respect. But I believe they have a mutated approach towards love and
sex - although in most cases it's likely due to a chemical imbalance
they cannot change.

> I don't lie to you--regardless
> of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of the

world;

You have lied many times.

Facts, professor, facts.

> And a fraud? Well, you and your slide rule couldn't support any

of that sour grapes-type attitude,

The math supports everything I've said (and many others) about VP.
Your attempts to create a system that isn't supported by the math

is what makes you a fraud.

You utilize dumb theory to support mathematical positions and
approaches to vp. None of that works and you should know that by
now. I on the other hand use factual evidence of actual historical
data to show my methods are much better, but because you're slide
rule doesn't cover that spectrum, you tingle in envy and call me,
what else, a fraud!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > The normal answer to all opposition when face with diminishing
> > dignity on a public forum. There is no such thing as 'racism'
when facing the enemy.
>
> All Muslims are not your enemy, however you refer to them as if
they were. That is racism.

Here's a scenario for a liberal muslim-lover like you:

Typical racist statement.

You board an
airplane for London. You look up, and there are 6 young Arabs
sitting nearby with solemn looks on their faces. Could be praying,
could be scheming. No one really knows at this point. Tell me, just
how do YOU feel about your flight to the UK right about now? If you
were more educated about the muslim religion, you'd know that they
stick together more than any other on earth. Most of the ones

around

the world either hate us, want us all dead, or wish we'd disappear--
and it's been like that for decades and in some cases, centuries.
More than half the ones in this country are irritated by the USA.

Most of the Muslims on earth don't give a hoot about us. They are
living their lives.

>
> What about your previous remarks about Indians?
>
> > That's an ACLU faggot-type response as they come to
> > the rescue of poor forlorn rag-tops;
>
> Racism against gays?

And tell me if gays aren't mega-racist against normal people!

Most of them aren't. They do worry about prejudice just like blacks
have for years. They are constantly faced with it from racists like
you.

I
don't like them nor appreciate how many of them try to use that

race

card all the time. Just take a look at the ACLU's record of
complaints and you'll see what I mean when a bunch of queers get
together. I have 2 friends that are gay, and I treat them with
respect. But I believe they have a mutated approach towards love

and

sex - although in most cases it's likely due to a chemical

imbalance

they cannot change.
>
> > I don't lie to you--regardless
> > of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of the
world;
>
> You have lied many times.

Facts, professor, facts.

You mean something like the 3 mythical math guys you hired ...

>
> > And a fraud? Well, you and your slide rule couldn't support any
of that sour grapes-type attitude,
>
> The math supports everything I've said (and many others) about

VP.

> Your attempts to create a system that isn't supported by the math
is what makes you a fraud.

You utilize dumb theory to support mathematical positions and
approaches to vp.

Addition, subtraction and basic statistics. Yep, all kinds of dumb
theories ...

None of that works and you should know that by now.

What more do I need to say? Denial of basic math is key to your fraud.

I on the other hand use factual evidence of actual historical
data to show my methods are much better, but because you're slide
rule doesn't cover that spectrum, you tingle in envy and call me,
what else, a fraud!

Your "factual evidence" is just as good as a lottery winners'. One
point on a graph means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "and you should know that
by now" since I've explained it to you several times.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> You board an airplane for London. You look up, and there are 6

young Arabs sitting nearby with solemn looks on their faces. Could be
praying, could be scheming. No one really knows at this point. Tell
me, just how do YOU feel about your flight to the UK right about now?
If you were more educated about the muslim religion, you'd know that
they stick together more than any other on earth. Most of the ones

around the world either hate us, want us all dead, or wish we'd

disappear--and it's been like that for decades and in some cases,
centuries. More than half the ones in this country are irritated by
the USA.

Most of the Muslims on earth don't give a hoot about us. They are
living their lives.

What qualifies you to say something as stupid as that? You're a
subscriber to the New York Times?? So often we hear from people like
you who, until the day comes when they have to face the Muslim music,
everything is soooo comfortable and it's all muslim hearts-and-
flowers. You're so gullible.

> And tell me if gays aren't mega-racist against normal people!

Most of them aren't. They do worry about prejudice just like blacks
have for years. They are constantly faced with it from racists like
you.

Now you're a worldly expert on queers too! The mere fact that they
must worry about 'prejudice' dictates that there's something
seriously wrong with them. Blacks are normal people who have a
different color skin that a lot of people don't like for some reason
or another. Queers brought all of this down upon themselves. Did you
ever wonder why most of them talk with some sort of sissified lisp?

> I
> don't like them nor appreciate how many of them try to use that
race
> card all the time. Just take a look at the ACLU's record of
> complaints and you'll see what I mean when a bunch of queers get
> together. I have 2 friends that are gay, and I treat them with
> respect. But I believe they have a mutated approach towards love
and
> sex - although in most cases it's likely due to a chemical
imbalance
> they cannot change.
> >
> > > I don't lie to you--regardless
> > > of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of the
> world;
> >
> > You have lied many times.
>
> Facts, professor, facts.

You mean something like the 3 mythical math guys you hired ...

And you've proven that not to be true?? Facts, professor. Facts.

> You utilize dumb theory to support mathematical positions and
> approaches to vp.

Addition, subtraction and basic statistics. Yep, all kinds of dumb
theories ...

....and flawless play throughout eternity on positive expectation
machines. Yup. Makes a whole lot of sense.

> I on the other hand use factual evidence of actual historical
> data to show my methods are much better, but because you're slide
> rule doesn't cover that spectrum, you tingle in envy and call me,
> what else, a fraud!

Your "factual evidence" is just as good as a lottery winners'. One
point on a graph means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "and you should know that
by now" since I've explained it to you several times.

Maybe your graph, but mine has 230 points right now. That's what I
mean. You are as incomplete with your foolish video poker theories as
you are with your grasp of the news around the world.

···

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

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

wrote:

> > You board an airplane for London. You look up, and there are 6
young Arabs sitting nearby with solemn looks on their faces. Could

be

praying, could be scheming. No one really knows at this point. Tell
me, just how do YOU feel about your flight to the UK right about

now?

If you were more educated about the muslim religion, you'd know

that

they stick together more than any other on earth. Most of the ones
> around the world either hate us, want us all dead, or wish we'd
disappear--and it's been like that for decades and in some cases,
centuries. More than half the ones in this country are irritated by
the USA.
>
> Most of the Muslims on earth don't give a hoot about us. They are
> living their lives.

What qualifies you to say something as stupid as that? You're a
subscriber to the New York Times??

Never read it. I get my news from local papers, TV and the internet.
These multiple sources may not give me a complete picture but close
enough for me.

So often we hear from people like
you who, until the day comes when they have to face the Muslim

music,

everything is soooo comfortable and it's all muslim hearts-and-
flowers. You're so gullible.

Not at all. It's just reality. MOST folks have more than enough to do
scratching out a living and have no real power. They don't have the
time nor energy to worry about politics. But, of course, if one of
their close relatives is killed or seriously injured that changes
everthing.

>
> > And tell me if gays aren't mega-racist against normal people!
>
> Most of them aren't. They do worry about prejudice just like

blacks

> have for years. They are constantly faced with it from racists

like

> you.

Now you're a worldly expert on queers too! The mere fact that they
must worry about 'prejudice' dictates that there's something
seriously wrong with them. Blacks are normal people who have a
different color skin that a lot of people don't like for some

reason

or another. Queers brought all of this down upon themselves. Did

you

ever wonder why most of them talk with some sort of sissified lisp?

Another racist type statement.

> > >
> > > > I don't lie to you--regardless
> > > > of your insignificance to video poker or even the rest of

the

> > world;
> > >
> > > You have lied many times.
> >
> > Facts, professor, facts.
>
> You mean something like the 3 mythical math guys you hired ...

And you've proven that not to be true?? Facts, professor. Facts.

Yes I did ... to any reasonable person. I don't care if you hang on
to this fiction.

>
> > You utilize dumb theory to support mathematical positions and
> > approaches to vp.
>
> Addition, subtraction and basic statistics. Yep, all kinds of

dumb

> theories ...

....and flawless play throughout eternity on positive expectation
machines. Yup. Makes a whole lot of sense.

NEAR perfect play is all it takes. And, that is SIMPLE for anyone who
puts any effort into it. The problem for many gamblers is that they
consider gambling entertainment and don't WANT to put a lot of effort
into it. That's because it becomes too much like WORK or they don't
think it matters because the games are all fixed anyway (a very
common belief).

>
> > I on the other hand use factual evidence of actual historical
> > data to show my methods are much better, but because you're

slide

> > rule doesn't cover that spectrum, you tingle in envy and call

me,

> > what else, a fraud!
>
> Your "factual evidence" is just as good as a lottery winners'.

One

> point on a graph means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "and you should know

that

> by now" since I've explained it to you several times.

Maybe your graph, but mine has 230 points right now. That's what I
mean. You are as incomplete with your foolish video poker theories

as

you are with your grasp of the news around the world.

No. You are ONE individual who has engaged in multiple sessions. You
are but one point on the graph of millions of individual gamblers.
Your personal results mean NOTHING statistically. This is why you're
viewed as a fraud by most serious gamblers.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> What qualifies you to say something as stupid as that? You're a
> subscriber to the New York Times??

Never read it. I get my news from local papers, TV and the

internet. These multiple sources may not give me a complete picture
but close enough for me.

Did you know most of the International news local papers around the
country is retreived from the NY Times?

> So often we hear from people like
> you who, until the day comes when they have to face the Muslim
music, everything is soooo comfortable and it's all muslim hearts-

and-flowers. You're so gullible.

Not at all. It's just reality. MOST folks have more than enough to

do

scratching out a living and have no real power. They don't have the
time nor energy to worry about politics. But, of course, if one of
their close relatives is killed or seriously injured that changes
everthing.

In other words, they listen to what they want and don't hear the
rest. But when it comes time to criticize the Gov't. they're some of
the most knowledgeable people on earth!

> Now you're a worldly expert on queers too! The mere fact that

they

> must worry about 'prejudice' dictates that there's something
> seriously wrong with them. Blacks are normal people who have a
> different color skin that a lot of people don't like for some
reason or another. Queers brought all of this down upon themselves.

Did you ever wonder why most of them talk with some sort of sissified
lisp?

Another racist type statement.

That's exactly what the dikes at the Times would say.>

> > > >
> > You mean something like the 3 mythical math guys you hired ...
>
> And you've proven that not to be true?? Facts, professor. Facts.

Yes I did ... to any reasonable person. I don't care if you hang on
to this fiction.

Let's see....I'm the one who hired and paid these people, you say I
didn't, and that proves I lied. You sound like the Queen saying she
never had a losing year because she says so. Ha!

NEAR perfect play is all it takes. And, that is SIMPLE for anyone

who

puts any effort into it. The problem for many gamblers is that they
consider gambling entertainment and don't WANT to put a lot of

effort

into it. That's because it becomes too much like WORK or they don't
think it matters because the games are all fixed anyway (a very
common belief).

I just wrote an article that mocks people who just say what you just
wrote. Each and every time I make the statement that the gurus blab
about playing perfectly (and they ALL have written it down exactly
like that) when it can't be done by any human being, then the very
next thing out of their mouths is "But gee Rob, it only really takes
NEAR-perfect play - and THAT's what I meant to say." Then when I tell
them that near-perfect play to a human on a tedious task such as
video poker is a 5% error rate at best, they come out and claim they
play better than 99% when they really never know WHAT they achieve.
Common sense such as this is why people read and enjoy what I say,
and why I am a better player than anyone has ever been.

> Maybe your graph, but mine has 230 points right now. That's what

I mean. You are as incomplete with your foolish video poker theories

as you are with your grasp of the news around the world.

No. You are ONE individual who has engaged in multiple sessions.

You are but one point on the graph of millions of individual
gamblers. Your personal results mean NOTHING statistically. This is
why you're viewed as a fraud by most serious gamblers.

OK. Break it down some. In your way of thinking, say 115 people
played my system and went 214-16. What's the difference how many
people played it? The record is there. Probably 210 won money and the
rest didn't. You don't see the clearly-illustrated statistical
meaning in my results because you don't want to. That does not change
a thing. And if there's any serious gamblers who say I'm a fraud for
whatever reason, it's simply because they are seriously jealous and
can't stand to hear about a very consistent winner in their midst.

···

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

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

wrote:

>
> > So often we hear from people like
> > you who, until the day comes when they have to face the Muslim
> music, everything is soooo comfortable and it's all muslim hearts-
and-flowers. You're so gullible.
>
> Not at all. It's just reality. MOST folks have more than enough

to

do
> scratching out a living and have no real power. They don't have

the

> time nor energy to worry about politics. But, of course, if one

of

> their close relatives is killed or seriously injured that changes
> everthing.

In other words, they listen to what they want and don't hear the
rest. But when it comes time to criticize the Gov't. they're some

of

the most knowledgeable people on earth!

Nope. Most of these folks are living in 3rd world proverty. They get
most of their info from clerics or leaders they respect. More
evidence that you have no idea what goes on in Iraq and have probably
never been there.

>
>> > Now you're a worldly expert on queers too! The mere fact that
they
> > must worry about 'prejudice' dictates that there's something
> > seriously wrong with them. Blacks are normal people who have a
> > different color skin that a lot of people don't like for some
> reason or another. Queers brought all of this down upon

themselves.

Did you ever wonder why most of them talk with some sort of

sissified

lisp?
>
> Another racist type statement.

That's exactly what the dikes at the Times would say.>

Another racist type statement.

> > > > >
> > > You mean something like the 3 mythical math guys you hired ...
> >
> > And you've proven that not to be true?? Facts, professor. Facts.
>
> Yes I did ... to any reasonable person. I don't care if you hang

on

> to this fiction.

Let's see....I'm the one who hired and paid these people, you say I
didn't, and that proves I lied.

Since you are unwilling to provide any more than your word, which is
worthless, the only possible conclusion is you lied.

>
> NEAR perfect play is all it takes. And, that is SIMPLE for anyone
who
> puts any effort into it. The problem for many gamblers is that

they

> consider gambling entertainment and don't WANT to put a lot of
effort
> into it. That's because it becomes too much like WORK or they

don't

> think it matters because the games are all fixed anyway (a very
> common belief).

I just wrote an article that mocks people who just say what you

just

wrote.

More evidence that you are a complete idiot.

Each and every time I make the statement that the gurus blab
about playing perfectly (and they ALL have written it down exactly
like that) when it can't be done by any human being, then the very
next thing out of their mouths is "But gee Rob, it only really

takes

NEAR-perfect play - and THAT's what I meant to say."

No, that's what I've ALWAYS said and that's all that is required.
PERIOD. Check our previous dicussion if your memory has failed you
once again.

Then when I tell
them that near-perfect play to a human on a tedious task such as
video poker is a 5% error rate at best, they come out and claim

they

play better than 99% when they really never know WHAT they achieve.

And you do??? Obviously not, a 5% error rate is ridiculous and
anyone who plays the game knows that. This is clearly just one more
attempt to justify your fraudulent claims.

>
> > Maybe your graph, but mine has 230 points right now. That's

what

I mean. You are as incomplete with your foolish video poker

theories

> as you are with your grasp of the news around the world.
>
> No. You are ONE individual who has engaged in multiple sessions.
You are but one point on the graph of millions of individual
gamblers. Your personal results mean NOTHING statistically. This is
why you're viewed as a fraud by most serious gamblers.

OK. Break it down some. In your way of thinking, say 115 people
played my system and went 214-16. What's the difference how many
people played it? The record is there. Probably 210 won money and

the

rest didn't.

I tried to keep it simple for you. Let's try it again. It's the
number of hands that count. Random is random and statistics will tell
the tale. Your record is meaningless.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> That's exactly what the dikes at the Times would say.

Another racist type statement.

Another way of saying 'another truth' to you. The liberal spin....

> Let's see....I'm the one who hired and paid these people, you say

I didn't, and that proves I lied.

Since you are unwilling to provide any more than your word, which

is worthless, the only possible conclusion is you lied.

And I thought you prided yourself on being factually driven,
professor. People who know me understand my word as never being even
the slightest bit misleading. People who don't would prefer to sit in
the shadows and criticize, because they aren't at the same level and
never will be. You've shown that type of temperment several times--
and because you believe me on all issues but just can't live with the
truth since it simultaneously makes you feel 'of no added value'. The
conclusion is....you tried.

No, that's what I've ALWAYS said and that's all that is required.
PERIOD. Check our previous dicussion if your memory has failed you
once again.

But you're not a guru or even acknowledged as proficient at the game.
So you're not yet in that bunch. I simply gave you a warning of what
to expect from me if you ever get to be like your heroes.

And you do??? Obviously not, a 5% error rate is ridiculous and
anyone who plays the game knows that. This is clearly just one more
attempt to justify your fraudulent claims.

Here's a flash, Doctor. I don't care in the least WHAT my error rate
is! I play to win every time I sit down, I don't keep stupid stats
other than won/loss records, I don't carry dumb strategy cards around
like an insecure nerd that are best used as expensive drink coasters,
and I have the professional understanding that anything can happen at
any time REGARDLESS of which cards I hold. You and 'they' obviously
WANT to be known as 'near-perfect' players in order to justify the
far-too-often play you and 'they' put in, yet you have absolutely no
idea when and where you make your mistakes. It's all feel-good
for 'you guys' while I look at it from a reality point of view. Until
you perform a 6-month study like I've been involved in on tedious,
boring tasks, you can't possibly expect anyone to go along with your
unproven theory that you and 'they' are near-perfect.

> OK. Break it down some. In your way of thinking, say 115 people
> played my system and went 214-16. What's the difference how many
> people played it? The record is there. Probably 210 won money and
the rest didn't.

I tried to keep it simple for you. Let's try it again. It's the
number of hands that count. Random is random and statistics will

tell the tale. Your record is meaningless.

There you go, peeling down that 'onion' another layer that's really
not there when you get lost. Now you'r saying you know how many hands
I played in those sessions, and whatever that is, it's just not
enough for you. HAHA! Caught with your insecurity blanket again!

···

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

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

wrote:

> > That's exactly what the dikes at the Times would say.
>
> Another racist type statement.

Another way of saying 'another truth' to you. The liberal spin....
>
> > Let's see....I'm the one who hired and paid these people, you

say

I didn't, and that proves I lied.
>
> Since you are unwilling to provide any more than your word, which
is worthless, the only possible conclusion is you lied.

And I thought you prided yourself on being factually driven,
professor. People who know me understand my word as never being

even

the slightest bit misleading. People who don't would prefer to sit

in

the shadows and criticize, because they aren't at the same level

and

never will be. You've shown that type of temperment several times--
and because you believe me on all issues but just can't live with

the

truth since it simultaneously makes you feel 'of no added value'.

The

conclusion is....you tried.

Translation. Yes, Rob lied and is now trying to bluff his way out of
it.

>
> No, that's what I've ALWAYS said and that's all that is required.
> PERIOD. Check our previous dicussion if your memory has failed

you

> once again.

But you're not a guru or even acknowledged as proficient at the

game.

Neither are you. In fact, you're acknowledged as a liar and a fraud.
However, since you did not refute my statement then you admit you
were lying before about my position on perfect play.

>
> And you do??? Obviously not, a 5% error rate is ridiculous and
> anyone who plays the game knows that. This is clearly just one

more

> attempt to justify your fraudulent claims.

Here's a flash, Doctor. I don't care in the least WHAT my error

rate

is! I play to win every time I sit down, I don't keep stupid stats
other than won/loss records, I don't carry dumb strategy cards

around

like an insecure nerd that are best used as expensive drink

coasters,

and I have the professional understanding that anything can happen

at

any time REGARDLESS of which cards I hold. You and 'they' obviously
WANT to be known as 'near-perfect' players in order to justify the
far-too-often play you and 'they' put in, yet you have absolutely

no

idea when and where you make your mistakes. It's all feel-good
for 'you guys' while I look at it from a reality point of view.

Until

you perform a 6-month study like I've been involved in on tedious,
boring tasks, you can't possibly expect anyone to go along with

your

unproven theory that you and 'they' are near-perfect.

Proven theory. Your attempt to wordsmith your position is obvious and
everyone can see it. Calling oneself a "professional" is typical
behavior of a scammer. True professionals don't NEED to do this since
they are recognized by their peers.

>
> > OK. Break it down some. In your way of thinking, say 115 people
> > played my system and went 214-16. What's the difference how

many

> > people played it? The record is there. Probably 210 won money

and

> the rest didn't.
>
> I tried to keep it simple for you. Let's try it again. It's the
> number of hands that count. Random is random and statistics will
tell the tale. Your record is meaningless.

There you go, peeling down that 'onion' another layer that's really
not there when you get lost. Now you'r saying you know how many

hands

I played in those sessions, and whatever that is, it's just not
enough for you. HAHA!

Actually, YOU are the one who has claimed short sessions. I was just
using your own statements. YOU've said this to indicate YOU are no
longer addicted and that anyone who plays long sessions is addicted.
YOU can't have it both ways. "HAHA!"

Caught with your insecurity blanket again!

Or, maybe I "caught" you in another lie. However, in any event, the
number of hands you've played at HIGH demons is not nearly enough to
be statistically useful. And, with a progressive system, it's these
highest denom hands that will make or break you. You MUST play these
with a return of over 100% to make up for losses at lower levels.
Since you claim they are not played on positive machines, then the
only possible conclusion is that you've been lucky on these machines.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

Translation. Yes, Rob lied and is now trying to bluff his way out

of it.

Translation: You're getting tired.

> >
> But you're not a guru or even acknowledged as proficient at the
game.

Neither are you. In fact, you're acknowledged as a liar and a

fraud. However, since you did not refute my statement then you admit
you were lying before about my position on perfect play.

Your 'statement' refutes itself, professor.

Proven theory. Your attempt to wordsmith your position is obvious

and everyone can see it. Calling oneself a "professional" is typical

behavior of a scammer. True professionals don't NEED to do this

since they are recognized by their peers.

That's because you've always wanted to be a professional anything and
have never achieved it. That's soooo transparent. And the more you
say the more dumb you look. Your 'peers' are not mine, and since I am
the cutting edge in the game today, I don't need many.
Professionalism is defined by consistent success. That's why I am
both a pro player and called a liar & fraud by you. Peers of your
nature are defined only by the amount of comfort they hand back and
forth to each other as they consistently lose.

Actually, YOU are the one who has claimed short sessions. I was

just using your own statements. YOU've said this to indicate YOU are
no longer addicted and that anyone who plays long sessions is
addicted. YOU can't have it both ways. "HAHA!"

To you, ANY session is short compared to what you waste time doing.
But then you are the one who claims you use factual data to come up
with your corrupted statements! So where's the data, professor.
Either you are as accurate with your assumptions as you say you are
or you're not. Proof. I mean, Poof!

> Caught with your insecurity blanket again!

Or, maybe I "caught" you in another lie. However, in any event, the
number of hands you've played at HIGH demons is not nearly enough

to

be statistically useful. And, with a progressive system, it's these
highest denom hands that will make or break you. You MUST play

these with a return of over 100% to make up for losses at lower
levels. Since you claim they are not played on positive machines,
then the only possible conclusion is that you've been lucky on these
machines.

Now you hopefully know better than you portray here. Obviously, when
I finally hit a good winner at a higher denom, the play within that
denom is over 100%--while within each lower levels remain far below
that (JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO PLAYS WITHIN SINGLE LEVELS--
INCLUDING YOU). If you keep looking I'm sure you'll see the light
even if you try to keep the end of your tunnel closed.

···

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

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

wrote:

> Translation. Yes, Rob lied and is now trying to bluff his way out
of it.

Translation: You're getting tired.

Who wouldn't get tired of your ridiculous responses? Doesn't change
the fact that you were wrong or intentionally lied.

>
> > >
> > But you're not a guru or even acknowledged as proficient at the
> game.
>
> Neither are you. In fact, you're acknowledged as a liar and a
fraud. However, since you did not refute my statement then you

admit

you were lying before about my position on perfect play.

Your 'statement' refutes itself, professor.

Translation. You're getting tired AND can't refute my facts.

>
> Proven theory. Your attempt to wordsmith your position is obvious
and everyone can see it. Calling oneself a "professional" is

typical

> behavior of a scammer. True professionals don't NEED to do this
since they are recognized by their peers.

That's because you've always wanted to be a professional anything

Actually, I am a professional software engineer. One with 4 patents
and many peer reviewed publishes. And you have ... let me think ...
oh, yes, a PROVEN fraudulent gambling system. Need I say more ...

and
have never achieved it. That's soooo transparent. And the more you
say the more dumb you look.

I believe you look pretty stupid right now.

Your 'peers' are not mine, and since I am
the cutting edge in the game today, I don't need many.

You're on the edge alright. Your attempts to sound important are
laughably ridiculous.

Professionalism is defined by consistent success. That's why I am
both a pro player and called a liar & fraud by you. Peers of your
nature are defined only by the amount of comfort they hand back and
forth to each other as they consistently lose.

No, professionalism is defined many ways, most importantly by having
an in-depth understanding of your chosen field. You have shown no
understanding whatsoever.

>
> Actually, YOU are the one who has claimed short sessions. I was
just using your own statements. YOU've said this to indicate YOU

are

no longer addicted and that anyone who plays long sessions is
addicted. YOU can't have it both ways. "HAHA!"

To you, ANY session is short compared to what you waste time doing.

And, what would that be? Please try to throw in one or two facts now
and then.

But then you are the one who claims you use factual data to come up
with your corrupted statements! So where's the data, professor.
Either you are as accurate with your assumptions as you say you are
or you're not. Proof. I mean, Poof!

I showed you a link to Reids' proof several months ago and you
ignored it. However, I think simple logic is sufficient to
demonstrate your system a fraud.

a) You agreed more than once that the payback of machines is accurate
with perfect play. Therefore, playing negative machines will, on
average, result in losses. So, let's follow that logic to conclusion.

b) Playing at the first level in a progression is destined to lose
over time playing negative machines as a) predicts. Nothing unusual
here.

b) Playing the next level in a progression will sometimes make up for
the losses on the previous level. To break even you must not only
play even on the higher level but better than even (over 100%
payback) to recover the previous levels' losses. Only then can you
revert to playing the previous level. While this may happen
sometimes, it cannot happen all the time because of a).

c) Eventually, you reach the top of the progression chain and you
have nowhere else to go. However, we just saw from b) that you must
lose over time at this level on a less then 100% payback machine.

d) Unless the gains garnered on wins that allow you revert back is
more than the losses incurred at c), you will eventually be a net
loser. However, for these wins to actually be higher, the machine
must be paying back over 100% as indicated in b).

Therefore, the net effect is you will lose over time paying a
progression unless you play positive machines. The effect of the
progression in many cases is to "delay" the losses. And, anyone who
is sufficiently lucky at the high levels will keep ahead for awhile.
Of course, this means they are playing at greater than 100% on a
negative machine and it probably won't last forever.

>
> > Caught with your insecurity blanket again!
>
> Or, maybe I "caught" you in another lie. However, in any event,

the

> number of hands you've played at HIGH demons is not nearly enough
to
> be statistically useful. And, with a progressive system, it's

these

> highest denom hands that will make or break you. You MUST play
these with a return of over 100% to make up for losses at lower
levels. Since you claim they are not played on positive machines,
then the only possible conclusion is that you've been lucky on

these

machines.

Now you hopefully know better than you portray here. Obviously,

when

I finally hit a good winner at a higher denom, the play within that
denom is over 100%--while within each lower levels remain far below
that (JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO PLAYS WITHIN SINGLE LEVELS--
INCLUDING YOU). If you keep looking I'm sure you'll see the light
even if you try to keep the end of your tunnel closed.

I demonstrated the fallacy in your thinking above. What you are
describing is a "controlled personal ER". In other words, you have
the ability to control WHEN you will get lucky. Of course, that would
require psychic powers OR LUCK. In any event, it won't work for the
general public and promoting such as system makes you a fraud.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

Who wouldn't get tired of your ridiculous responses? Doesn't change
the fact that you were wrong or intentionally lied.

You're continually supporting the fact that you're as moronic as they
come, and your constant jaunts to the casino up there are helping you
along that path.

> Your 'statement' refutes itself, professor.

Translation. You're getting tired AND can't refute my facts.

You're a simple copy cat at this point. Whereas in the video poker
discussion that I made you look like the math nerd without a clue
that you are, you quit. this time around you haven't anything
intelligent to say, so the best you can do is copy me.
Booooo....Hisssssss

> That's because you've always wanted to be a professional anything

Actually, I am a professional software engineer. One with 4 patents
and many peer reviewed publishes. And you have ... let me think ...
oh, yes, a PROVEN fraudulent gambling system. Need I say more ...

All you can say about yourself is what you WERE. Your problem is you
can't keep up with the big boys of today, so you try to make believe
you're in some sort of time warp where, at the time, you had some
kind of respect. Too late Jack. Time carries on, and you've been left
behind. Get over it. Accept the fact that you're a has-been trying to
be like me.

> Your 'peers' are not mine, and since I am
> the cutting edge in the game today, I don't need many.

You're on the edge alright. Your attempts to sound important are
laughably ridiculous.

You forgot? I'm the one with fame and legend here, while you are
caught up with living in the past. Hurts a little, doesn't it? You
should have prepared for old age a bit better 'back then' don't you
think?

> Professionalism is defined by consistent success. That's why I am
> both a pro player and called a liar & fraud by you. Peers of your
> nature are defined only by the amount of comfort they hand back

and

> forth to each other as they consistently lose.

No, professionalism is defined many ways, most importantly by

having an in-depth understanding of your chosen field. You have shown
no understanding whatsoever.

Understanding means absolutely nothing without success. I proved that
1990-1996. Today, to your chagrin, I am the best player who's ever
played the game, hands down. All challengers to that, including your
hero Bob Dancer, have been made to eat crow. So unless you walk on
water, you can only dream of the success I've had. And unless you
walk around with a constant hard-on all day long, leave your wet
dreams alone.

I showed you a link to Reids' proof several months ago and you
ignored it. However, I think simple logic is sufficient to
demonstrate your system a fraud.

You'd conjure up anything to make believe something that you don't
understand is true to your way of wishing. Reid is an idiot that you
know nothing about, and he certainly hasn't any expertise in winning
vp strategies.

c) Eventually, you reach the top of the progression chain and you
have nowhere else to go. However, we just saw from b) that you must
lose over time at this level on a less then 100% payback machine.

This is the jist of your argument, and the rest of your babble is of
no concern to a pro player. You should be able to readily recognize
the error of your thinking right here. First, you people always
say "But gee Rob, you'll eventually run into the same thing
Martingale table players do---a casino upper limit of play that'll
stop you from winning that one hand". While that particular scenario
may happen once in a great while--and it has happened to me once in
230 tries--you conveniently ignore the large winners that come along
the way during the progression that more than make up for that large
loss. My largest loss is $33k. Largest win is $94k. Next, the notion
that I HAVE to lose over time on less-than-100% games at the high
levels (I mostly play DDB at 9/5) is all advantage player BS.
Regardless of how often I play--and I don't play the higher limits
much--I'll NEVER reach or even come close to what you consider to be
a term long enough for me to be considered within your so-called long-
term. Anything can happen at any time, and i take complete advantage
of that fact all the time. You don't, and that's why you see losers.

d) Unless the gains garnered on wins that allow you revert back is
more than the losses incurred at c), you will eventually be a net
loser. However, for these wins to actually be higher, the machine
must be paying back over 100% as indicated in b).

I've already proved that not to be true, but you keep making believe
i'm doing this for millions of years. Get real.

Therefore, the net effect is you will lose over time paying a
progression unless you play positive machines. The effect of the
progression in many cases is to "delay" the losses. And, anyone who
is sufficiently lucky at the high levels will keep ahead for

awhile.

Of course, this means they are playing at greater than 100% on a
negative machine and it probably won't last forever.

Blah blah blah. The same old broken record that means zero to
me. "Play negative machines and you will lose; play positive ones and
you will win." Are you really as boring and stupid as all that?

I demonstrated the fallacy in your thinking above. What you are
describing is a "controlled personal ER". In other words, you have
the ability to control WHEN you will get lucky. Of course, that

would require psychic powers OR LUCK. In any event, it won't work for
the general public and promoting such as system makes you a fraud.

Is that all you can come up with? There is no 'thinking above'. When
you come to realize that it is actual fact, only then will that
tunnel show some light. Remember, YOU'RE the only one who says
I 'control luck'. Not me. I take advantage of it every time it comes
along because I've set goals and I know how to decrease denominations
or go home. You can't understand that because, as an addict, you
either can't stop or HAVE to play a higher denomination after a win.

···

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

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

wrote:

> Who wouldn't get tired of your ridiculous responses? Doesn't

change

> the fact that you were wrong or intentionally lied.

You're continually supporting the fact that you're as moronic as

they

come, and your constant jaunts to the casino up there are helping

you

along that path.

What jaunts to what casino up where? I love it when you try to change
the subject. It demonstates an admittance of failure.

>
> > Your 'statement' refutes itself, professor.
>
> Translation. You're getting tired AND can't refute my facts.

You're a simple copy cat at this point. Whereas in the video poker
discussion that I made you look like the math nerd without a clue
that you are, you quit. this time around you haven't anything
intelligent to say, so the best you can do is copy me.
Booooo....Hisssssss

Hmmm. I wonder who copied who in the use of "translation". In this
case I simply threw back your assertions to show you how ridiculous
you've become. It's getting to you, isn't it?

>
> > That's because you've always wanted to be a professional

anything

>
> Actually, I am a professional software engineer. One with 4

patents

> and many peer reviewed publishes. And you have ... let me

think ...

> oh, yes, a PROVEN fraudulent gambling system. Need I say more ...

All you can say about yourself is what you WERE. Your problem is

you

can't keep up with the big boys of today, so you try to make

believe

you're in some sort of time warp where, at the time, you had some
kind of respect. Too late Jack. Time carries on, and you've been

left

behind. Get over it. Accept the fact that you're a has-been trying

to

be like me.

Clearly, the fact that I am a professional gets to you, doesn't it?
And, the best you can do, once again, is praise yourself. Everyone
knows that's because absolutely no one else would do it. Your
panicing again, Rob.

>
> > Your 'peers' are not mine, and since I am
> > the cutting edge in the game today, I don't need many.
>
> You're on the edge alright. Your attempts to sound important are
> laughably ridiculous.

You forgot? I'm the one with fame and legend here, while you are
caught up with living in the past. Hurts a little, doesn't it? You
should have prepared for old age a bit better 'back then' don't you
think?

The panic continues ...

>
> > Professionalism is defined by consistent success. That's why I

am

> > both a pro player and called a liar & fraud by you. Peers of

your

> > nature are defined only by the amount of comfort they hand back
and
> > forth to each other as they consistently lose.
>
> No, professionalism is defined many ways, most importantly by
having an in-depth understanding of your chosen field. You have

shown

no understanding whatsoever.

Understanding means absolutely nothing without success. I proved

that

1990-1996. Today, to your chagrin, I am the best player who's ever
played the game, hands down.

The panic continues ...

All challengers to that, including your
hero Bob Dancer, have been made to eat crow. So unless you walk on
water, you can only dream of the success I've had. And unless you
walk around with a constant hard-on all day long, leave your wet
dreams alone.

This is fantastic. Everyone gets to see the real Rob.

>
> I showed you a link to Reids' proof several months ago and you
> ignored it. However, I think simple logic is sufficient to
> demonstrate your system a fraud.

You'd conjure up anything to make believe something that you don't
understand is true to your way of wishing. Reid is an idiot that

you

know nothing about, and he certainly hasn't any expertise in

winning

vp strategies.

Actually, math is the game and his proof demonstates you are a fraud.

>
> c) Eventually, you reach the top of the progression chain and you
> have nowhere else to go. However, we just saw from b) that you

must

> lose over time at this level on a less then 100% payback machine.

This is the jist of your argument, and the rest of your babble is

of

no concern to a pro player.

Translation. Even my simple logic went WAY over Rob's simple
intellect.

You should be able to readily recognize
the error of your thinking right here. First, you people always
say "But gee Rob, you'll eventually run into the same thing
Martingale table players do---a casino upper limit of play that'll
stop you from winning that one hand".

Did I say that? No, but now that you mention it the "upper limit"
statement is true. It's the thorn in the side of any progressive
system.

While that particular scenario
may happen once in a great while--and it has happened to me once in
230 tries--

In our earlier conversation, you stated you did have some (more than
one) losing sessions. Now, you are saying only one. I wonder which is
the lie.

you conveniently ignore the large winners that come along

I haven't ignored anything. I've simply related facts. You are the
one who continually ignores them. Have I mentioned before that your
personal results mean NOTHING. I'm discussing your system, it either
stands on its' merits or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't.

>
> d) Unless the gains garnered on wins that allow you revert back

is

> more than the losses incurred at c), you will eventually be a net
> loser. However, for these wins to actually be higher, the machine
> must be paying back over 100% as indicated in b).

I've already proved that not to be true

No, you haven't proved anything. You personal results mean NOTHING.

but you keep making believe
i'm doing this for millions of years. Get real.

Nope. I don't care what you do or when you do it. I'm just stating
proven facts.

>
> Therefore, the net effect is you will lose over time paying a
> progression unless you play positive machines. The effect of the
> progression in many cases is to "delay" the losses. And, anyone

who

> is sufficiently lucky at the high levels will keep ahead for
awhile.
> Of course, this means they are playing at greater than 100% on a
> negative machine and it probably won't last forever.

Blah blah blah. The same old broken record that means zero to
me.

I don't care what it means to you. I'm just stating facts.

>
> I demonstrated the fallacy in your thinking above. What you are
> describing is a "controlled personal ER". In other words, you

have

> the ability to control WHEN you will get lucky. Of course, that
would require psychic powers OR LUCK. In any event, it won't work

for

the general public and promoting such as system makes you a fraud.

Is that all you can come up with? There is no 'thinking above'.

Since I was referring to "your thinking", I can only agree with you
here.

When
you come to realize that it is actual fact, only then will that
tunnel show some light. Remember, YOU'RE the only one who says
I 'control luck'. Not me.

No. When you say that your SYSTEM wins, then YOU'RE saying you
control luck.

I take advantage of it every time it comes
along because I've set goals

Then you ARE admitting you control luck through setting goals. Thank
you for claiming the impossible. I think we can now all agree that
Rob is a fraud. QED.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

What jaunts to what casino up where? I love it when you try to

change the subject. It demonstates an admittance of failure.

You do. There's 2 subjects here: 1. Your 'advantage player' addiction
to video poker and why you lose all the time. & 2. Your sour-grapes
whining over GWB's historic win that you'll never get over as a
crying liberal pacifist.

Hmmm. I wonder who copied who in the use of "translation". In this
case I simply threw back your assertions to show you how ridiculous
you've become. It's getting to you, isn't it?

This is where you use the word 'whom'--although it's obviously true
they don't teach SW people common sense at any point along the way.
Now you're copying me for saying you copied me. Kind of like the
whily little kid you used to be, right?

Clearly, the fact that I am a professional gets to you, doesn't it?

You're a has-been, big difference. I'm a has-been EE also, as well as
a has-been MBA. However, TODAY is what counts, and I'm the
professional while you are in your declining years with nothing but
fading memories. THAT's what's a-hurtin'

And, the best you can do, once again, is praise yourself. Everyone
knows that's because absolutely no one else would do it. Your
panicing again, Rob.

When your the best at something that ticks a whiner off, you keep it
up. I'm having a blast watching you squirm every time I tell the
truth about my being the best video poker player ever. It further
irks you're privately taking a beating when you and your stupid slide
rule dictate theory that says your suppose to win.

> You forgot? I'm the one with fame and legend here, while you are
> caught up with living in the past. Hurts a little, doesn't it?

You should have prepared for old age a bit better 'back then' don't
you think?

The panic continues ..

Yes, I can see.......

> Understanding means absolutely nothing without success. I proved
that 1990-1996. Today, to your chagrin, I am the best player who's

ever played the game, hands down.

The panic continues ...

....as you run out of things to blabber.

> All challengers to that, including your
> hero Bob Dancer, have been made to eat crow. So unless you walk

on water, you can only dream of the success I've had. And unless you

> walk around with a constant hard-on all day long, leave your wet
> dreams alone.

This is fantastic. Everyone gets to see the real Rob.

Correcto, while no one gets to see the real you until I tell the
truth about you. Super-Duper!

> You'd conjure up anything to make believe something that you

don't understand is true to your way of wishing. Reid is an idiot
that you know nothing about, and he certainly hasn't any expertise in

winning vp strategies.

Actually, math is the game and his proof demonstates you are a

fraud.

Same old nonsense. You don't understand something and can't figure it
out, so you bring in another nebulous personality. Just a bit on the
weak side....

> This is the jist of your argument, and the rest of your babble is
of no concern to a pro player.

Translation. Even my simple logic went WAY over Rob's simple
intellect.

'Simple'...You said it.

> You should be able to readily recognize
> the error of your thinking right here. First, you people always
> say "But gee Rob, you'll eventually run into the same thing
> Martingale table players do---a casino upper limit of play

that'll stop you from winning that one hand".

Did I say that? No, but now that you mention it the "upper limit"
statement is true. It's the thorn in the side of any progressive
system.

You didn't say that because you have a tough time putting your
thoughts into comprehensible wording--typical of all S/W engineers
who never continued their education for refinement and common sense.

In our earlier conversation, you stated you did have some (more

than one) losing sessions. Now, you are saying only one. I wonder
which is the lie.

You're having that trouble again. One Large loss.

> you conveniently ignore the large winners that come along

I haven't ignored anything. I've simply related facts. You are the
one who continually ignores them. Have I mentioned before that your
personal results mean NOTHING. I'm discussing your system, it

either stands on its' merits or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't.

You purposely ignore large winners, because you can't understand that
they do happen when your math says they should not. You keep whining
that my personal results mean nothing, when that's they ONLY really
important issue to me, and you know that. Your constant frustration
comes from your inability to grasp onto the facts as presented. In
high school I've seen nerds bend their slide rules over their pointed
heads because of such irritability.

> but you keep making believe
> i'm doing this for millions of years. Get real.

Nope. I don't care what you do or when you do it. I'm just stating
proven facts.

You've never stated any clear facts--just conjectures and wishful
thinking due to a lack of understanding.

> When
> you come to realize that it is actual fact, only then will that
> tunnel show some light. Remember, YOU'RE the only one who says
> I 'control luck'. Not me.

No. When you say that your SYSTEM wins, then YOU'RE saying you
control luck.

That's what YOU want it to be, but it isn't. If you were one of the
S/W engineers who I had working for me over the years, I'd say "You
leave me no choice, You're FIRED"

> I take advantage of it every time it comes
> along because I've set goals

Then you ARE admitting you control luck through setting goals.

Thank you for claiming the impossible. I think we can now all agree
that Rob is a fraud. QED.

Huh? Making believe of something out of nothing again?? You do have
trouble with words....

···

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

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

wrote:

> What jaunts to what casino up where? I love it when you try to
change the subject. It demonstates an admittance of failure.

You do. There's 2 subjects here: 1. Your 'advantage player'

addiction

to video poker and why you lose all the time. &

OK. Now I'm at 8 RFs in less than 40 days. During this period I'm
over 7K ahead. I don't think that qualifies as "lose all the time".
It's what being an advantage player is all about.

2. Your sour-grapes

whining over GWB's historic win that you'll never get over as a
crying liberal pacifist.

Move on ...

>
> Hmmm. I wonder who copied who in the use of "translation". In

this

> case I simply threw back your assertions to show you how

ridiculous

> you've become. It's getting to you, isn't it?

This is where you use the word 'whom'--although it's obviously true
they don't teach SW people common sense at any point along the way.
Now you're copying me for saying you copied me. Kind of like the
whily little kid you used to be, right?

As usual, I just relay the facts. It's getting to you, isn't it?

>
> Clearly, the fact that I am a professional gets to you, doesn't

it?

You're a has-been, big difference. I'm a has-been EE also, as well

as

a has-been MBA.

You can add has-been gambler. Or, possibly, never-was.

However, TODAY is what counts, and I'm the
professional while you are in your declining years with nothing but
fading memories. THAT's what's a-hurtin'

Nope, not in the least. See above. I think the fact that I and other
advantage players continually make money while you lost is what makes
you so jealous.

> And, the best you can do, once again, is praise yourself.

Everyone

> knows that's because absolutely no one else would do it. Your
> panicing again, Rob.

When your the best at something that ticks a whiner off, you keep

it

up.

Are you talking about me now? Thanks.

>
> > You forgot? I'm the one with fame and legend here, while you

are

> > caught up with living in the past. Hurts a little, doesn't it?
You should have prepared for old age a bit better 'back then' don't
you think?
>
> The panic continues ..

Yes, I can see.......

It's about time.

>
> > Understanding means absolutely nothing without success. I

proved

> that 1990-1996. Today, to your chagrin, I am the best player

who's

ever played the game, hands down.
>
> The panic continues ...

....as you run out of things to blabber.

Nothing else is required. The facts speak for themselves.

>
> > All challengers to that, including your
> > hero Bob Dancer, have been made to eat crow. So unless you walk
on water, you can only dream of the success I've had. And unless

you

> > walk around with a constant hard-on all day long, leave your

wet

> > dreams alone.
>
> This is fantastic. Everyone gets to see the real Rob.

Correcto, while no one gets to see the real you until I tell the
truth about you. Super-Duper!

Hmmm. So far everything you've said about me has been proven false.
Could it get any better? Now, your bringing up your own errors.

>
> > You'd conjure up anything to make believe something that you
don't understand is true to your way of wishing. Reid is an idiot
that you know nothing about, and he certainly hasn't any expertise

in

> winning vp strategies.
>
> Actually, math is the game and his proof demonstates you are a
fraud.

Same old nonsense. You don't understand something and can't figure

it

out, so you bring in another nebulous personality. Just a bit on

the

weak side....

No, just more proof. However, what I've said previously is all that
is required for anyone with common sense.

>
> > This is the jist of your argument, and the rest of your babble

is

> of no concern to a pro player.
>
> Translation. Even my simple logic went WAY over Rob's simple
> intellect.

'Simple'...You said it.

And I'l' say it again. Rob's simple intellect. It's interesting that
your would appreciate being called a simpleton.

>
> > you conveniently ignore the large winners that come along
>
> I haven't ignored anything. I've simply related facts. You are

the

> one who continually ignores them. Have I mentioned before that

your

> personal results mean NOTHING. I'm discussing your system, it
either stands on its' merits or it doesn't. In this case, it

doesn't.

You purposely ignore large winners, because you can't understand

that

they do happen when your math says they should not.

The math says nothing of the sort. Anyone can have large winners at
any time. That is simply another fact.

You keep whining
that my personal results mean nothing, when that's they ONLY really
important issue to me, and you know that. Your constant frustration
comes from your inability to grasp onto the facts as presented. In
high school I've seen nerds bend their slide rules over their

pointed

heads because of such irritability.

You always revert to name-calling when you have nothing intelligent
to say. It's so obvious. The only issue I'll ever discuss with anyone
is whether a system works or not. It's not about YOU. I don't care
whether you win or lose.

>
> > but you keep making believe
> > i'm doing this for millions of years. Get real.
>
> Nope. I don't care what you do or when you do it. I'm just

stating

> proven facts.

You've never stated any clear facts--just conjectures and wishful
thinking due to a lack of understanding.

Let me repeat what I stated just a couple of posts ago. I'll try to
make it even simpler for your simple mind.

1) The overall results of YOUR progressive system can be broken down
as the sum of your results at all N levels of the progression. I
don't care whether you keep track of these results or not.

Are you with me so far? Hope that wasn't too complicated. All I
really said is addition works. If you disagree with 1), state why.

2) The results at ANY level (call it X) in your progression is no
different then the results of ANY person who plays single level VP.
If they play on negative machines then, over time, their results will
approach the ER of their ability on these machines, that is, they
will lose. There will always be a few lucky people who win, but the
vast majority will lose (this is what the casinos are banking on).

I hope this is still clear. Nothing too challenging here.

3) Since I didn't specify any pre-conditions on X. Statement 2)
applies to any and all levels in the progression. Finally, due to 1)
you are summing negative numbers which always yields a negative
result.

Can you find a single unproven conjecture here? Nope, it's really
just that simple.

>
> > I take advantage of it every time it comes
> > along because I've set goals
>
> Then you ARE admitting you control luck through setting goals.
Thank you for claiming the impossible. I think we can now all agree
that Rob is a fraud. QED.

Huh? Making believe of something out of nothing again?? You do have
trouble with words....

Nope. We all "take advantage" of luck when it comes along.
Unfortunately, there's no way to control when it will happen.

When you say you "allow luck to happen". You are simply trying to
wordsmith your way around saying you control luck. It has a softer
sound but it means EXACTLY the same thing. "Allow" means exactly the
same as "control" in this context because it requires an action on
your part to achieve the desired result.

Since the only way around my proof that your system can't work is to
claim a mysterious side-effect (allowing luck to happen), you have
done exactly that. This is a common practice among scammers. It is
obvious to anyone who cares to think about it, that your system is a
fraud and you are nothing but a two-bit scammer.

QED.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> You do. There's 2 subjects here: 1. Your 'advantage player'
addiction to video poker and why you lose all the time. &

OK. Now I'm at 8 RFs in less than 40 days. During this period I'm
over 7K ahead. I don't think that qualifies as "lose all the time".
It's what being an advantage player is all about.

Who cares? Remember, YOU'RE the one who blabs about short-term wins
meaning nothing! And $7k? HA! I've got ONE RF in the past 80 days,
and I won over $30k in that span! If I were still playing it'd be far
more. So stop talking peanuts and don't get off your long-term
expressway to the poor house.

> This is where you use the word 'whom'--although it's obviously

true they don't teach SW people common sense at any point along the
way. Now you're copying me for saying you copied me. Kind of like the

> whiny little kid you used to be, right?

As usual, I just relay the facts. It's getting to you, isn't it?

Yeah, the fact that there's no facts. It's not easy making a fool out
of you over and over again. I'm running out of material unless you
serve it up!

> However, TODAY is what counts, and I'm the
> professional while you are in your declining years with nothing

but fading memories. THAT's what's a-hurtin'

Nope, not in the least. See above. I think the fact that I and

other advantage players continually make money while you lost is what
makes you so jealous.

Make-believe again, professor?

> > The panic continues ..
>
> Yes, I can see.......

It's about time.

You respond just as a tired old man would. Go back to the vp machines
where you are a legend to the Squaws, and hit another 25c RF after
losing $1400 to get it.

> Correcto, while no one gets to see the real you until I tell the
> truth about you. Super-Duper!

Hmmm. So far everything you've said about me has been proven false.
Could it get any better? Now, your bringing up your own errors.

Proof, professor. Proof once again. By your own nerdy requirements.

And I'l' say it again. Rob's simple intellect. It's interesting

that your would appreciate being called a simpleton.

Simple is real. What you make believe you are is not. I prefer the
truth over the fantasies of an old fart. (My son just stopped over
and read that. You ought to hear him laughing at the geezer in
Minnetonka. BTW--he's in the US Army....an organization you deplore).

You always revert to name-calling when you have nothing intelligent
to say. It's so obvious. The only issue I'll ever discuss with

anyone is whether a system works or not. It's not about YOU. I don't
care whether you win or lose.

Getting to you??? And we now have a hypocrite in the midst. One who
doesn't care about how I do but he thinks his prowess is something
everyone would want to see. Yo, Bubba!

> You've never stated any clear facts--just conjectures and wishful
> thinking due to a lack of understanding.

Let me repeat what I stated just a couple of posts ago. I'll try to
make it even simpler for your simple mind.

1) The overall results of YOUR progressive system can be broken

down

as the sum of your results at all N levels of the progression. I
don't care whether you keep track of these results or not.

Are you with me so far? Hope that wasn't too complicated. All I
really said is addition works. If you disagree with 1), state why.

2) The results at ANY level (call it X) in your progression is no
different then the results of ANY person who plays single level VP.
If they play on negative machines then, over time, their results

will

approach the ER of their ability on these machines, that is, they
will lose. There will always be a few lucky people who win, but the
vast majority will lose (this is what the casinos are banking on).

I hope this is still clear. Nothing too challenging here.

Blah blah blah. As boring as they come. Who cares about that babbling
nonsense? I know it makes you feel good to re-write the same BS down
again, but it impresses no one but you and maybe losers like
Quadzilla or Jazbo.

Nope. We all "take advantage" of luck when it comes along.

If you keep on playing with no goals then you are not taking
advantage of the luck you received.

Unfortunately, there's no way to control when it will happen.

No dick!

When you say you "allow luck to happen". You are simply trying to
wordsmith your way around saying you control luck. It has a softer
sound but it means EXACTLY the same thing.

Your way of an attempt to re-word what I said. no wonder you get
confused so easily and run off in these nerd-rants.

"Allow" means exactly the same as "control" in this context because
it requires an action on your part to achieve the desired result.

My cookoo clock sounds better than that statement does when read
aloud.

Since the only way around my proof that your system can't work is

to

claim a mysterious side-effect (allowing luck to happen), you have
done exactly that. This is a common practice among scammers. It is
obvious to anyone who cares to think about it, that your system is

a

fraud and you are nothing but a two-bit scammer.

QED.

QED. Does that mean Queer-Eyed-Dick?

···

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

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

wrote:

> > You do. There's 2 subjects here: 1. Your 'advantage player'
> addiction to video poker and why you lose all the time. &
>
> OK. Now I'm at 8 RFs in less than 40 days. During this period I'm
> over 7K ahead. I don't think that qualifies as "lose all the

time".

> It's what being an advantage player is all about.

Who cares? Remember, YOU'RE the one who blabs about short-term wins
meaning nothing! And $7k? HA! I've got ONE RF in the past 80 days,
and I won over $30k in that span! If I were still playing it'd be

far

more. So stop talking peanuts and don't get off your long-term
expressway to the poor house.

My response to was to your statement "you lose all the time". It
proved you are wrong. Period! The fact you went off the deep end
shows your continual inability to comprehend simple English.

>
> And I'l' say it again. Rob's simple intellect. It's interesting
that you would appreciate being called a simpleton.

Simple is real. What you make believe you are is not. I prefer the
truth over the fantasies of an old fart. (My son just stopped over
and read that. You ought to hear him laughing at the geezer in
Minnetonka. BTW--he's in the US Army....an organization you

deplore).

Good old Minnetonka. I actually, know someone from there but it's
nowhere near my house. As for the Army, I wasn't too happy with the
pay during my tenure but I never "deplored" it. I made lot's of
friends there and visited some places I never would have otherwise.

Got any more idiotic statements up your sleeve?

>
> You always revert to name-calling when you have nothing

intelligent

> to say. It's so obvious. The only issue I'll ever discuss with
anyone is whether a system works or not. It's not about YOU. I

don't

care whether you win or lose.

Getting to you??? And we now have a hypocrite in the midst. One who
doesn't care about how I do but he thinks his prowess is something
everyone would want to see. Yo, Bubba!

Nope. Like I pointed out above, I was simply proving you wrong,
again. I'm sure no one cares about my results unless they are looking
to understand one individuals' advantage play.

>
> > You've never stated any clear facts--just conjectures and

wishful

> > thinking due to a lack of understanding.
>
> Let me repeat what I stated just a couple of posts ago. I'll try

to

> make it even simpler for your simple mind.
>
> 1) The overall results of YOUR progressive system can be broken
down
> as the sum of your results at all N levels of the progression. I
> don't care whether you keep track of these results or not.
>
> Are you with me so far? Hope that wasn't too complicated. All I
> really said is addition works. If you disagree with 1), state why.
>
> 2) The results at ANY level (call it X) in your progression is no
> different then the results of ANY person who plays single level

VP.

> If they play on negative machines then, over time, their results
will
> approach the ER of their ability on these machines, that is, they
> will lose. There will always be a few lucky people who win, but

the

> vast majority will lose (this is what the casinos are banking on).
>
> I hope this is still clear. Nothing too challenging here.

Blah blah blah. As boring as they come. Who cares about that

babbling

nonsense?

The facts above are so simple even you have no comeback. My task is
complete.

> Nope. We all "take advantage" of luck when it comes along.

If you keep on playing with no goals then you are not taking
advantage of the luck you received.

I never said I wasn't playing without goals. However, in VP there is
ONLY one goal that MUST outweigh any other goal. It is very
simple. "Play your next hand with an advantage." That's all that is
required. Anything else is pure scam.

> Unfortunately, there's no way to control when it will happen.

No dick!

Yes Rob!

>
> When you say you "allow luck to happen". You are simply trying to
> wordsmith your way around saying you control luck. It has a

softer

> sound but it means EXACTLY the same thing.

Your way of an attempt to re-word what I said. no wonder you get
confused so easily and run off in these nerd-rants.

No rewording required. Just stating a fact.

"Allow" means exactly the same as "control" in this context

because

it requires an action on your part to achieve the desired result.

My cookoo clock sounds better than that statement does when read
aloud.

No wonder I call you a simpleton. When you use "allow" to achieve a
result (as in "allow luck to happen"), it means you have done
something to influence the result. That is "control".

>
> Since the only way around my proof that your system can't work is
to
> claim a mysterious side-effect (allowing luck to happen), you

have

> done exactly that. This is a common practice among scammers. It

is

> obvious to anyone who cares to think about it, that your system

is

a
> fraud and you are nothing but a two-bit scammer.
>
> QED.

QED. Does that mean Queer-Eyed-Dick?

No, it means I have sufficiently proved my point. Thank you.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

My response to was to your statement "you lose all the time". It
proved you are wrong. Period! The fact you went off the deep end
shows your continual inability to comprehend simple English.

You proved nothing other than writing something stupid down about
your play. "Who cares?" is the proper response to someone as
insignificant as you trying to impress me with something like that.
And you're the only one who knows if you win or lose for sure. I
believe you lose because of your attitude towards my methodologies--
of which jealousy is at the top of the list.

Good old Minnetonka. I actually, know someone from there but it's
nowhere near my house. As for the Army, I wasn't too happy with the
pay during my tenure but I never "deplored" it. I made lot's of
friends there and visited some places I never would have otherwise.

"Never would have otherwise" just about sums up most of your life,
doesn't it? You "never would have otherwise" chatted so long with the
world's greatest vp player if I didn't let you either.

Nope. Like I pointed out above, I was simply proving you wrong,
again. I'm sure no one cares about my results unless they are

looking to understand one individuals' advantage play.

But then what good would all that typing Jazbo and Bill Velek do if
people only want to understand YOUR nonsensical type of play?

> Blah blah blah. As boring as they come. Who cares about that
babbling nonsense?

The facts above are so simple even you have no comeback. My task is
complete.

Thank God! It's like listening to Robbie The Robot go on and on and
on and on about a squeak in his left nut.

I never said I wasn't playing without goals. However, in VP there

is ONLY one goal that MUST outweigh any other goal. It is very

simple. "Play your next hand with an advantage." That's all that is
required. Anything else is pure scam.

And here's yet another reason why you make believe you win. The ONLY
goal in vp is to get a winning hand. No one cares if they have the
advantage or not. You're as dumb as a rock when you spew such
nonsense. It's similar to the fool 'advantage' player who goes over
to that pit Terrible's for double royal promotions or the car
giveaways, claiming it adds 2.1% to the game and therefore
theoretically making it a positive endeavor. But alas, the only
person with the advantage turns out to be the winner of the
PROMOTION, knucklehead! Everybody else is a LOSER!!

> My cookoo clock sounds better than that statement does when read
> aloud.

No wonder I call you a simpleton. When you use "allow" to achieve a
result (as in "allow luck to happen"), it means you have done
something to influence the result. That is "control".

Yo, wake up already. I 'allow' it to happen by playing certain dealt
hands non-optimal. Like the 2266X on $25 DDB where 22223 appeared.
Like 4477X on $10 DDB a week later when 44442 appeared.
Your 'advantage' play would have spanked you if you tried to make
those plays, but these are the ones that will only be lucky winners
if you allow them the chance to be. And then there's the goal of
leaving after attaining a pre-set win goal. 'Advantage' players could
screw even THAT up if they played as I do, by sitting there for hours
on end feeding it all back in like the addicted morons that they are.

···

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

>
> QED. Does that mean Queer-Eyed-Dick?

No, it means I have sufficiently proved my point. Thank you.

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

wrote:

> My response to was to your statement "you lose all the time". It
> proved you are wrong. Period! The fact you went off the deep end
> shows your continual inability to comprehend simple English.

You proved nothing other than writing something stupid down about
your play. "Who cares?" is the proper response to someone as
insignificant as you trying to impress me with something like that.
And you're the only one who knows if you win or lose for sure. I
believe you lose because of your attitude towards my methodologies--
of which jealousy is at the top of the list.

I've already proved your theories are worthless. This constant babble
on your part is just an obvious attempt to hide it. Work won't.

>
> Good old Minnetonka. I actually, know someone from there but it's
> nowhere near my house. As for the Army, I wasn't too happy with

the

> pay during my tenure but I never "deplored" it. I made lot's of
> friends there and visited some places I never would have

otherwise.

"Never would have otherwise" just about sums up most of your life,
doesn't it? You "never would have otherwise" chatted so long with

the

world's greatest vp player if I didn't let you either.

More babble. Too bad I alrady proved your system is worthless which
also proves you are the antithesis of the a good player. I would say
you are probably the "worlds' greatest liar".

>
> > Blah blah blah. As boring as they come. Who cares about that
> babbling nonsense?
>
> The facts above are so simple even you have no comeback. My task

is

> complete.

Thank God! It's like listening to Robbie The Robot go on and on and
on and on about a squeak in his left nut.

Rob still cannot refute the facts I presented that PROVE his
progressive system does not work. The stupidity flows forth from your
keyboard even afterwards ...

>
> I never said I wasn't playing without goals. However, in VP there
is ONLY one goal that MUST outweigh any other goal. It is very
> simple. "Play your next hand with an advantage." That's all that

is

> required. Anything else is pure scam.

And here's yet another reason why you make believe you win. The

ONLY

goal in vp is to get a winning hand.

Wrong again. You confuse "desire" with "goal". It shows your ongoing
stupdity. I can be dealt 4 ot a RF and another face card in JOB. If I
keep the high pair I will always win. Pretty much makes your
statement as irrelevant as you.

No one cares if they have the
advantage or not.

Anyone who wants to win cares. That's what it's all about. The
stupidity level in your posts continues to grow.

You're as dumb as a rock when you spew such
nonsense. It's similar to the fool 'advantage' player who goes over
to that pit Terrible's for double royal promotions or the car
giveaways, claiming it adds 2.1% to the game and therefore
theoretically making it a positive endeavor. But alas, the only
person with the advantage turns out to be the winner of the
PROMOTION, knucklehead! Everybody else is a LOSER!!

You've just demonstrated the reason why the goal is to always play
the next hand at an advantage. As long as ALL hands are played that
way the RFs will come over time and so will the winnings. It's
ammusing to see you scamble so much after I proved your system is a
fraud.

>
> > My cookoo clock sounds better than that statement does when

read

> > aloud.
>
> No wonder I call you a simpleton. When you use "allow" to achieve

a

> result (as in "allow luck to happen"), it means you have done
> something to influence the result. That is "control".

Yo, wake up already. I 'allow' it to happen by playing certain

dealt

hands non-optimal.

That's why it's a scam.

Like the 2266X on $25 DDB where 22223 appeared.
Like 4477X on $10 DDB a week later when 44442 appeared.

And that is why your results don't matter. Just because you've been
lucky doesn't mean a twit.

Your 'advantage' play would have spanked you if you tried to make
those plays, but these are the ones that will only be lucky winners
if you allow them the chance to be.

Or, in the long run cost you more than you win (or you also claiming
the games are not random as required by law). Tell us about the times
you've thrown away the second pair and got ZIP.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: