Euros hiding under our skirt again

[Dan_Cox]

> 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.

I have none of your dumb 'theories' because I live a real life, so
whatever you think you're proven is all in that make-believe world of
yours again.

> "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".

A great liar....Hmmmm. Just one more area where I guess you're saying
I'm better than you at!

> 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 ...

What was the name of that movie that Robot was in? Forgotten Planet,
wasn't it? Seems you've also forgotten that you haven't laid out
anything resembling any sort of proof other than your stupid security-
blanket theories.

> 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.

That's what I said, bozo. "If I keep the high card I will always
win"...do you know what you just said? My gosh. Because you live in a
world of fantasy, you think playing a machine >100% is more of
a 'desire' than getting a winning hand. What an imbecile!

> 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.

I don't have any advantage when I play, and I don't CARE if I have a
theoretical advantage or not. I win all the time. That's the only
thing anyone cares about. If you didn't then you wouldn't be blabbing
about being whatever it is you say you're ahead in the past 2 months.
You're all leaky and it shows like that pimple on your nose.

> 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.

Now isn't that the epitomy of all the stupid statements you
make. "The next hand is being played at an advantage because if you
throw the value of the giveaways and double royals into the theory,
it just is!" Get over the fact that no on has the advantage except
the winners. When will you learn---THEORY doesn't put money into your
pockets. Neither does this sort of feel-good fluff you talk about
like a desperate idiot.

> Yo, wake up already. I 'allow' it to happen by playing certain
dealt hands non-optimal.

That's why it's a scam.

Spoken like a true person who once again is short on the experience.
Kind of like all those 'countries around the world' you never got to
go to but are a 'theoretical expert' at!

> 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.

Sure it does. Ask my bank account manager. And then ask me about it
again. I'll tell you I do it all the time, it often happens at lower
levels too, I don't play those higher limits often, and there's no
way those hands had the opportunity to show up if I didn't go for
them at the time. Just because it puts your dumb programabble mind
into tilt doesn't mean a tweet.

> 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.

Nevada law--yes. Indians have no law, unless it's the one they make
you believe is in existance in your mind just so you can justify
playing far more than you should. Now about those times I've thrown
away a 2nd pair and got zip.....many many times. But now I'm going to
take your spin off of it and tell the rest of the story---the one you
choose not to hear. Many times I've hit 2-pr. anyway; many times I've
hit trips; many times I've hit a FH ANYWAY; sometimes I've hit quads,
and sometimes with the kickers. And because of the progression and
where I've hit them lately, just as in the development plan (that you
can aimlessly pick on all you like) I will never ever get behind on
that special play simply because I'm several hundred thousand ahead
because of it. Put that in your slide rule and whine some more.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > 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.

I have none of your dumb 'theories' because I live a real life, so
whatever you think you're proven is all in that make-believe world

of

yours again.

Please define a "real life". While you're at it what is a "fake life".

If this comes back with something concrete I'll be surprised.

>
> > "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".

A great liar....Hmmmm. Just one more area where I guess you're

saying

I'm better than you at!

No doubt about that. You're also better at being stupid, a racist, a
warmonger, a fraud and a coward. I think that just about covers it.

>
> > 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 ...

What was the name of that movie that Robot was in? Forgotten

Planet,

wasn't it? Seems you've also forgotten that you haven't laid out
anything resembling any sort of proof other than your stupid

security-

blanket theories.

I ask you refute anything I said. You couldn't. That's because it was
so simple and so correct. That's why it called a proof. And, if you
want the mathematical equivalent, see Reids' work.

>
> > 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.

That's what I said, bozo. "If I keep the high card I will always
win"...do you know what you just said?

No, you said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning hand". Can't
you read your own posts.

My gosh. Because you live in a
world of fantasy, you think playing a machine >100% is more of
a 'desire' than getting a winning hand. What an imbecile!

You are the one who said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning
hand". I showed you an example where getting a winning hand would be
an idiotic play. You are so dumb you couldn't even figure that out.
How does it feel to look like a complete "imbecile" in your reply now
that I've pointed out your inability to read a simple sentence? Maybe
you should read more closely in the future.

> > 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.
>
Now isn't that the epitomy of all the stupid statements you
make. "The next hand is being played at an advantage

Those are the facts, your dumbness. You make not like it but the
earth is round and the best way to make a profit is to play at an
advantage.

because if you
throw the value of the giveaways and double royals into the theory,
it just is!"

This has nothing to do with it. Added benefit only. I never factor
them into my "advantage" play. You sure do look more stupid all the
time.

Get over the fact that no on has the advantage except
the winners. When will you learn---THEORY doesn't put money into

your

pockets. Neither does this sort of feel-good fluff you talk about
like a desperate idiot.

Talk about "desperate". I realize you think calling the earth round
is also "feel-good fluff". The rest of us know it's round. It's just
another fact like advantage VP.

>
> > 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.

Sure it does.

No it doesn't. In exactly the same way a lottery winners' results
don't mean a twit to anyone else.

>
> > 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.

Nevada law--yes.

Thank you.

Indians have no law, unless it's the one they make
you believe is in existance in your mind just so you can justify
playing far more than you should.

Or, .... if they signed an agreement with the state. Just like they
did in MN where they AGREED to a compact that requires random games
just like in NV. Go read the compact and see where the Indians will
LOSE their gambling rights or pay heavy fines if they violate the
compact. You ignorance is showing once again.

Now about those times I've thrown
away a 2nd pair and got zip.....many many times.

That's why it's called random and that's why the average gambler will
lose money with this play over time.

But now I'm going to
take your spin off of it and tell the rest of the story---the one

you

choose not to hear. Many times I've hit 2-pr. anyway; many times

I've

hit trips; many times I've hit a FH ANYWAY; sometimes I've hit

quads,

and sometimes with the kickers. And because of the progression and
where I've hit them lately, just as in the development plan (that

you

can aimlessly pick on all you like) I will never ever get behind on
that special play simply because I'm several hundred thousand ahead
because of it. Put that in your slide rule and whine some more.

I don't care a twit about your personal results. Have I said that
before? It's the system that is in question (well no longer in
question since I proved it was worthless). If you want to talk about
yourself go in bathroom and have at it.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> I have none of your dumb 'theories' because I live a real life,

so whatever you think you're proven is all in that make-believe world

of yours again.

Please define a "real life". While you're at it what is a "fake

life".

REAL LIFE: One in which a human being reacts to all conditions with
an abundance of common sense, and where conjecture, theory, and
models of what is SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE in a controlled situation are
not taken or acted upon in a way that would encourage one to falsely
presume it is without first challenging it in every way possible.

FAKE LIFE: One in which a human being cannot accept what is. This
style is a life devoid of any and all common sense, and is
resourceful enough to create as many feel-good situations out of
theory and make-believe that, in time, will make one actually believe
all the twisted logic and fantasy tales told are 100% true.

If this comes back with something concrete I'll be surprised.

So you see, all your make-believe theory about video poker and the
war and all the other things that disappoint you really don't effect
you in any way, because you've talked yourself into such a fantasy
land that now you're beyond the point of no return and actually
believe yourself.

> A great liar....Hmmmm. Just one more area where I guess you're
saying I'm better than you at!

No doubt about that. You're also better at being stupid, a racist,

a warmonger, a fraud and a coward. I think that just about covers it.

Just think about all that. If I'm THAT great over you, and you're
saying as a has-been SW programmer with patents and all that baloney,
there's no doubt that I transcend you as a person, I must be quite
the guy!!

> What was the name of that movie that Robot was in? Forgotten
Planet, wasn't it? Seems you've also forgotten that you haven't

laid out anything resembling any sort of proof other than your stupid

security-blanket theories.

I ask you refute anything I said. You couldn't. That's because it

was so simple and so correct. That's why it called a proof. And, if
you want the mathematical equivalent, see Reids' work.

I refuted what you said many many times, but you couldn't grasp onto
it (or refused to because of it's irrefutable logic that you don't
possess) and all you have since done is conjure up this guy Reid and
his nonsense that has little to do with life as it really is and
nothing to do at all with video poker.

> That's what I said, bozo. "If I keep the high card I will always
> win"...do you know what you just said?

No, you said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning hand". Can't
you read your own posts.

More doubletalk. The only goal for every player IS to get a winning
hand. If your goal is simply to play an advantage game then that's
your problem.

> My gosh. Because you live in a
> world of fantasy, you think playing a machine >100% is more of
> a 'desire' than getting a winning hand. What an imbecile!

You are the one who said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning
hand". I showed you an example where getting a winning hand would

be an idiotic play.

More of that doubletalk. Your 4-to-the-royal example is one of
those 'go for it' hands that I'm so successful at and that you
criticize. The fact that it is some sort of mathematically correct
play over infinity gives you all your false strength here, but it is
a fact that my Strategies are winners because I also do that along
with a number of others that don't pass your stupid slide rule test.

> Now isn't that the epitomy of all the stupid statements you
> make. "The next hand is being played at an advantage

Those are the facts, your dumbness. You make not like it but the
earth is round and the best way to make a profit is to play at an
advantage.

There you go again with your babbling about the round or flat earth.
It doesn't quite fit here, but if it makes you feel good....you're
likely not going to be around in 20 years, so why not type it AGAIN
today, for the 50th useless time!!!

> because if you
> throw the value of the giveaways and double royals into the

theory, it just is!"

This has nothing to do with it. Added benefit only. I never factor
them into my "advantage" play. You sure do look more stupid all the
time.

You're losing it, professor. Explain how 'your' advantage play is any
different than other's 'advantage play'. Your heroes Dancer and Scott
say they go to where the promotions are all the time and play <100%
games because the promos put them into the positive area. And I've
seen them do it. How do you "create" your 'positive' machines??

> Get over the fact that no on has the advantage except
> the winners. When will you learn---THEORY doesn't put money into
your pockets. Neither does this sort of feel-good fluff you talk

about like a desperate idiot.

Talk about "desperate". I realize you think calling the earth round
is also "feel-good fluff". The rest of us know it's round. It's

just another fact like advantage VP.

Please make more sense than whatever it is you were trying to say.

> Sure it does.

No it doesn't. In exactly the same way a lottery winners' results
don't mean a twit to anyone else.

What a dork! NOTHING anyone does or wins or loses or works at or eats
etc. etc. etc. etc. means a twit to anyone else. think clearly before
you put more stupidity on here.

> Indians have no law, unless it's the one they make
> you believe is in existance in your mind just so you can justify
> playing far more than you should.

Or, .... if they signed an agreement with the state. Just like they
did in MN where they AGREED to a compact that requires random games
just like in NV. Go read the compact and see where the Indians will
LOSE their gambling rights or pay heavy fines if they violate the
compact. You ignorance is showing once again.

Yo, blind man in Minnesota....Hello McFly once again!! EVERY state
that has Indian gaming has a pact with that state saying the games
are either random or they are set to pay back no more than X%. The
problem with that--and you may not like this because it would
challenge your reasoning to justify playing more than you should--is
in who REGULATES & VERIFIES. Connecticut is clear--the Indians do all
that and report to the state. In Arizona, it is not clear, because
both commissions claim 'it's the other guy' who verifies, but at the
end of the day the Indians simply report 'all is withing spec' to the
state. And all compacts state the same meaningless clause--loss of
gaming rights and/or those famous 'heavy fines' for violation. Guess
who loses----anyone stupid enough to play at those places.

> Now about those times I've thrown
> away a 2nd pair and got zip.....many many times.

That's why it's called random and that's why the average gambler

will lose money with this play over time.

Read the rest--esp. the 2nd part that you hate to see.

> But now I'm going to
> take your spin off of it and tell the rest of the story---the one
you choose not to hear. Many times I've hit 2-pr. anyway; many

times I've hit trips; many times I've hit a FH ANYWAY; sometimes I've
hit quads, and sometimes with the kickers. And because of the
progression and where I've hit them lately, just as in the
development plan (that you can aimlessly pick on all you like) I will
never ever get behind on that special play simply because I'm several
hundred thousand ahead because of it. Put that in your slide rule and
whine some more.

I don't care a twit about your personal results. Have I said that
before? It's the system that is in question (well no longer in
question since I proved it was worthless). If you want to talk

about yourself go in bathroom and have at it.

I don't need to go in the bathroom and have at it, because my wife is
still young and pretty enough that I don't have to do what you do.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > I have none of your dumb 'theories' because I live a real life,
so whatever you think you're proven is all in that make-believe

world

> of yours again.
>
> Please define a "real life". While you're at it what is a "fake
life".

REAL LIFE: One in which a human being reacts to all conditions with
an abundance of common sense, and where conjecture, theory, and
models of what is SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE in a controlled situation are
not taken or acted upon in a way that would encourage one to

falsely

presume it is without first challenging it in every way possible.

Common sense? This leaves out Rob. The rest of the your definition is
really just an excuse for your fraudulent VP theories, let's move
on ...

FAKE LIFE: One in which a human being cannot accept what is.

Does this describe Rob, or what?

This
style is a life devoid of any and all common sense,

More Rob ...

and is
resourceful enough to create as many feel-good situations out of
theory and make-believe that, in time, will make one actually

believe

all the twisted logic and fantasy tales told are 100% true.

Another attempt to justify your fradulent VP theories. What a
surprise???

By the way, there's no such thing as a real or fake life, bozo, but
you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

>
> > A great liar....Hmmmm. Just one more area where I guess you're
> saying I'm better than you at!
>
> No doubt about that. You're also better at being stupid, a

racist,

a warmonger, a fraud and a coward. I think that just about covers

it.

Just think about all that. If I'm THAT great over you, and you're
saying as a has-been SW programmer with patents and all that

baloney,

there's no doubt that I transcend you as a person, I must be quite
the guy!!

Yes, you are quite the LOSER, little else needs to be added.
  

>
> > What was the name of that movie that Robot was in? Forgotten
> Planet, wasn't it? Seems you've also forgotten that you haven't
laid out anything resembling any sort of proof other than your

stupid

> security-blanket theories.
>
> I ask you refute anything I said. You couldn't. That's because it
was so simple and so correct. That's why it called a proof. And, if
you want the mathematical equivalent, see Reids' work.

I refuted what you said many many times,

Nope, I laid out my proof and all you did was ignore it even when I
specifically asked for your comments. If you have anything to add
that refutes what I stated then bring it on. I know you can't because
there is nothing you can say beyond your normal name calling and
chest beating responses.

but you couldn't grasp onto
it (or refused to because of it's irrefutable logic that you don't
possess) and all you have since done is conjure up this guy Reid

and

his nonsense that has little to do with life as it really is and
nothing to do at all with video poker.

Let's hear ONE single thing that refutes what I wrote. Come on, ONE
thing, bozo. You can't, so give it up.

>
> > That's what I said, bozo. "If I keep the high card I will

always

> > win"...do you know what you just said?
>
> No, you said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning hand".

Can't

> you read your own posts.

More doubletalk. The only goal for every player IS to get a winning
hand. If your goal is simply to play an advantage game then that's
your problem.

ROTFLMAO. You still don't get it do you? You still make Dilberts'
manager look like a genius.

>
> > My gosh. Because you live in a
> > world of fantasy, you think playing a machine >100% is more of
> > a 'desire' than getting a winning hand. What an imbecile!
>
> You are the one who said "the ONLY goal in VP is to get a winning
> hand". I showed you an example where getting a winning hand would
be an idiotic play.

More of that doubletalk. Your 4-to-the-royal example is one of
those 'go for it' hands that I'm so successful at and that you
criticize. The fact that it is some sort of mathematically correct
play over infinity gives you all your false strength here, but it

is

a fact that my Strategies are winners because I also do that along
with a number of others that don't pass your stupid slide rule test.

Still laughing. So, you finally figured it out. Your words do nothng
to reduce the foolishness you must now be feeling.

> > Now isn't that the epitomy of all the stupid statements you
> > make. "The next hand is being played at an advantage
>
> Those are the facts, your dumbness. You make not like it but the
> earth is round and the best way to make a profit is to play at an
> advantage.

There you go again with your babbling about the round or flat

earth.

It doesn't quite fit here, but if it makes you feel good....you're
likely not going to be around in 20 years, so why not type it AGAIN
today, for the 50th useless time!!!

It's such a good analogy to your VP theories that I will continue to
use it as long as you tout your worthless system.

>
> > because if you
> > throw the value of the giveaways and double royals into the
theory, it just is!"
>
> This has nothing to do with it. Added benefit only. I never

factor

> them into my "advantage" play. You sure do look more stupid all

the

> time.

You're losing it, professor. Explain how 'your' advantage play is

any

different than other's 'advantage play'.

Again, I was simply answering your post. You went off the deep end
trying to tie "giveaways and double royals " to advantage play. I was
simply refuting your statement. You should try keep track of your
previous posts since your alcohol damaged brain has clearly destroyed
your memory.

>
>
> > Get over the fact that no on has the advantage except
> > the winners. When will you learn---THEORY doesn't put money

into

> your pockets. Neither does this sort of feel-good fluff you talk
about like a desperate idiot.
>
> Talk about "desperate". I realize you think calling the earth

round

> is also "feel-good fluff". The rest of us know it's round. It's
just another fact like advantage VP.

Please make more sense than whatever it is you were trying to say.

There goes that alcohol again. A few more brain cells just bought the
big one.

>
> > Indians have no law, unless it's the one they make
> > you believe is in existance in your mind just so you can

justify

> > playing far more than you should.
>
> Or, .... if they signed an agreement with the state. Just like

they

> did in MN where they AGREED to a compact that requires random

games

> just like in NV. Go read the compact and see where the Indians

will

> LOSE their gambling rights or pay heavy fines if they violate the
> compact. You ignorance is showing once again.

Yo, blind man in Minnesota....Hello McFly once again!! EVERY state
that has Indian gaming has a pact with that state saying the games
are either random or they are set to pay back no more than X%.

You love to show your ignorance. You're claiming you've
studied "EVERY state"s laws and enforcement systems ... Would you
like a test???

The
problem with that--and you may not like this because it would
challenge your reasoning to justify playing more than you should--

is

in who REGULATES & VERIFIES. Connecticut is clear--the Indians do

all

that and report to the state. In Arizona, it is not clear, because
both commissions claim 'it's the other guy' who verifies, but at

the

end of the day the Indians simply report 'all is withing spec' to

the

state. And all compacts state the same meaningless clause--loss of
gaming rights and/or those famous 'heavy fines' for violation.

Guess

who loses----anyone stupid enough to play at those places.

So, your limited knowledge of AZ inspires you to say "EVERY state"
has problems. What a fool ... It's obvious that you have this opinion
because of all the money you poured into those casinos playing
negative games thinking you could come out a winner.

... I don't have to do what you do.

Win at VP? And, actually, spend some time understanding VP? I already
knew that.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> REAL LIFE: One in which a human being reacts to all conditions

with

> an abundance of common sense, and where conjecture, theory, and
> models of what is SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE in a controlled situation

are

> not taken or acted upon in a way that would encourage one to
falsely
> presume it is without first challenging it in every way possible.

Common sense? This leaves out Rob. The rest of the your definition

is

really just an excuse for your fraudulent VP theories, let's move
on ...

>
> FAKE LIFE: One in which a human being cannot accept what is.

Does this describe Rob, or what?

> This
> style is a life devoid of any and all common sense,

More Rob ...

> and is
> resourceful enough to create as many feel-good situations out of
> theory and make-believe that, in time, will make one actually
believe
> all the twisted logic and fantasy tales told are 100% true.

Another attempt to justify your fradulent VP theories. What a
surprise???

By the way, there's no such thing as a real or fake life, bozo, but
you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Typical remarks from someone who hides and make-believe. And if I
defined REAL and FAKE lives, they are. That's the difference between
a successful person and a wannabee who hides. I can say it and it
simply is. You babble on trying to fit in and you never will.

Nope, I laid out my proof and all you did was ignore it even when I
specifically asked for your comments. If you have anything to add
that refutes what I stated then bring it on. I know you can't

because

there is nothing you can say beyond your normal name calling and
chest beating responses.

My comments were that you are a hypocrite. You make believe you live
by a mathematical, factual code, but then you never support anything
you say with fact. Just "Nope" and "Yup".

> More of that doubletalk. Your 4-to-the-royal example is one of
> those 'go for it' hands that I'm so successful at and that you
> criticize. The fact that it is some sort of mathematically

correct play over infinity gives you all your false strength here,
but it is a fact that my Strategies are winners because I also do
that along with a number of others that don't pass your stupid slide
rule test.

Still laughing. So, you finally figured it out. Your words do

nothng to reduce the foolishness you must now be feeling.

So few words? See what I mean when I say you've failed??

> You're losing it, professor. Explain how 'your' advantage play is
any different than other's 'advantage play'.

Again, I was simply answering your post. You went off the deep end
trying to tie "giveaways and double royals " to advantage play. I

was

simply refuting your statement. You should try keep track of your
previous posts since your alcohol damaged brain has clearly

destroyed your memory.

Left out in the cold with no answers again, professor?

> Yo, blind man in Minnesota....Hello McFly once again!! EVERY

state that has Indian gaming has a pact with that state saying the
games are either random or they are set to pay back no more than X%.

You love to show your ignorance. You're claiming you've
studied "EVERY state"s laws and enforcement systems ... Would you
like a test???

I studied Az. & Conn., and subsequently learned Conn. to be the basis
for all other compacts. You, as an addicted gambler at a tribal
casino trying to recoup all the hurtful losses made on those far-too-
often trips, would NEVER want to even peek at the truth here.

So, your limited knowledge of AZ inspires you to say "EVERY state"
has problems. What a fool ... It's obvious that you have this

opinion because of all the money you poured into those casinos
playing negative games thinking you could come out a winner.

Same nonsense....same requirement to support your local Indian
casinos!

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

Typical remarks from someone who hides and make-believe. And if I
defined REAL and FAKE lives, they are. That's the difference

between

a successful person and a wannabee who hides. I can say it and it
simply is. You babble on trying to fit in and you never will.

You ... a successful person ... get real. You are just a loser trying
to sell an obvious fraud and hide behind name calling and chest
besting. You are the antithesis of a successful person.

>
> Nope, I laid out my proof and all you did was ignore it even when

I

> specifically asked for your comments. If you have anything to add
> that refutes what I stated then bring it on. I know you can't
because
> there is nothing you can say beyond your normal name calling and
> chest beating responses.

My comments were that you are a hypocrite. You make believe you

live

by a mathematical, factual code, but then you never support

anything

you say with fact. Just "Nope" and "Yup".

I laid out a logical proof that your system is a scam and you had
nothing to refute it. That's plenty of fact. And you've provided
what? Zippo facts. Just name calling and chest beating. I think
everytone can see who the hypocrite is ...

>
> > You're losing it, professor. Explain how 'your' advantage play

is

> any different than other's 'advantage play'.
>
> Again, I was simply answering your post. You went off the deep

end

> trying to tie "giveaways and double royals " to advantage play. I
was
> simply refuting your statement. You should try keep track of your
> previous posts since your alcohol damaged brain has clearly
destroyed your memory.

Left out in the cold with no answers again, professor?

Nope, not in the least. It was obvious to anyone who read this thread
that you missed the point of my post entirely and now you have no
comeback other than your usual garbage and don't have the guts to
admit it. One more reason to label you a coward.

>
> > Yo, blind man in Minnesota....Hello McFly once again!! EVERY
state that has Indian gaming has a pact with that state saying the
games are either random or they are set to pay back no more than

X%.

>
> You love to show your ignorance. You're claiming you've
> studied "EVERY state"s laws and enforcement systems ... Would you
> like a test???

I studied Az. & Conn., and subsequently learned Conn. to be the

basis

for all other compacts.

Your lies are so obvious. The MN compact that deals with machine
randomness was taken almost word for word from the NV gaming
commission rules. Instead of admitting you were wrong you try to lie
your way out of another ridiculous assertion. Would you like me to
send you a copy? At a cost. How many lies have I caught you in
already ...

You, as an addicted gambler at a tribal
casino trying to recoup all the hurtful losses made on those far-

too-

often trips, would NEVER want to even peek at the truth here.

More ridiculous assertions/lies. Especially since it's been over 2
months since I even visited an Indian casino. Are you sure you
wouldn't like to see the MN compact? I could send it to you. The
price is $20,000? Seems to be a number you like.

>
> So, your limited knowledge of AZ inspires you to say "EVERY

state"

> has problems. What a fool ... It's obvious that you have this
opinion because of all the money you poured into those casinos
playing negative games thinking you could come out a winner.

Same nonsense....same requirement to support your local Indian
casinos!

Hit the nail right on the head, didn't I? Better hurry with your
request, Rob. The price will be going up soon.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

You ... a successful person ... get real. You are just a loser

trying to sell an obvious fraud and hide behind name calling and
chest besting. You are the antithesis of a successful person.

Stop being a sissy and accept the fact that you are chatting with a
superior human being in many more ways than one. Be a man, step up to
the plate, and take your whipping with honor. You're always CRYING
about something.

> My comments were that you are a hypocrite. You make believe you
live by a mathematical, factual code, but then you never support
anything you say with fact. Just "Nope" and "Yup".

I laid out a logical proof that your system is a scam and you had
nothing to refute it. That's plenty of fact. And you've provided
what? Zippo facts. Just name calling and chest beating. I think
everytone can see who the hypocrite is ...

You flip-flop the issues and twist meaning around that are so obvious
to any reader. Your so-called 'facts' are nothing more than wannabee
make-believe fantasies that only you can believe, and most of the
time they are non-existent in the first place.

> Left out in the cold with no answers again, professor?

Nope, not in the least. It was obvious to anyone who read this

thread that you missed the point of my post entirely and now you have
no comeback other than your usual garbage and don't have the guts to

admit it. One more reason to label you a coward.

I guess I was right, since you floated away once again. And what's
with the name-calling? You know how much I'm against that type of
thing.

> I studied Az. & Conn., and subsequently learned Conn. to be the
basis for all other compacts.

Your lies are so obvious. The MN compact that deals with machine
randomness was taken almost word for word from the NV gaming
commission rules. Instead of admitting you were wrong you try to

lie your way out of another ridiculous assertion. Would you like me
to send you a copy? At a cost. How many lies have I caught you in

already ...

How stupid can you be? I know, it's old age, but try a little harder.
The randomness requirement is similar to Nevada's, but that's not
what we're talking about, is it. We're talking about how those
regulations are written into Indian Gaming Compacts, and what
regulatory agency has the responsibility of verification. The reason
you have no knowledge past that point and I do is because you're
continuing with conjecture based on insufficient data once again. I
took the time to study 2 states with a fine-toothed comb, and then I
talked to BIA. Your best bet is to call me a liar because you have
years less support than do I. So what else is new from an old man in
the frying pan??

> You, as an addicted gambler at a tribal
> casino trying to recoup all the hurtful losses made on those far-
too-often trips, would NEVER want to even peek at the truth here.

More ridiculous assertions/lies. Especially since it's been over 2
months since I even visited an Indian casino. Are you sure you
wouldn't like to see the MN compact? I could send it to you. The
price is $20,000? Seems to be a number you like.

I already have several Compact copies--they all say the same stupid
thing about regulations. You have nothing of value to sell anyone.
And like I believe an addicted vp player when he says "Gee, I haven't
been to an Indian casino in over 2 months".

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> You ... a successful person ... get real. You are just a loser
trying to sell an obvious fraud and hide behind name calling and
chest besting. You are the antithesis of a successful person.

Stop being a sissy and accept the fact that you are chatting with a
superior human being in many more ways than one.

More chest beating, monkey boy? Give it up.

Be a man, step up to
the plate, and take your whipping with honor. You're always CRYING
about something.

I'm at the plate and so far have ripped you apart with my proff that
your system is a fraud. Maybe you'd better find a relief pitcher with
a brain.

>
> > My comments were that you are a hypocrite. You make believe you
> live by a mathematical, factual code, but then you never support
> anything you say with fact. Just "Nope" and "Yup".
>
> I laid out a logical proof that your system is a scam and you had
> nothing to refute it. That's plenty of fact. And you've provided
> what? Zippo facts. Just name calling and chest beating. I think
> everytone can see who the hypocrite is ...

You flip-flop the issues and twist meaning around that are so

obvious

to any reader.

Dream on, monkey boy. Let's hear some facts to refute my proof or
climb back in your tree.

>
> > Left out in the cold with no answers again, professor?
>
> > I studied Az. & Conn., and subsequently learned Conn. to be the
> basis for all other compacts.
>
> Your lies are so obvious. The MN compact that deals with machine
> randomness was taken almost word for word from the NV gaming
> commission rules. Instead of admitting you were wrong you try to
lie your way out of another ridiculous assertion. Would you like me
to send you a copy? At a cost. How many lies have I caught you in
> already ...

How stupid can you be? I know, it's old age, but try a little

harder.

The randomness requirement is similar to Nevada's, but that's not
what we're talking about, is it. We're talking about how those
regulations are written into Indian Gaming Compacts, and what
regulatory agency has the responsibility of verification. The

reason

you have no knowledge past that point and I do is because you're
continuing with conjecture based on insufficient data once again. I
took the time to study 2 states with a fine-toothed comb, and then

I

talked to BIA. Your best bet is to call me a liar because you have
years less support than do I. So what else is new from an old man

in

the frying pan??

You stated that ALL state compacts were EXACTLY like CT. I showed
where they were NOT. This attempt to cover your stupidity with more
lies is obvious.

>
> > You, as an addicted gambler at a tribal
> > casino trying to recoup all the hurtful losses made on those

far-

> too-often trips, would NEVER want to even peek at the truth here.
>
> More ridiculous assertions/lies. Especially since it's been over

2

> months since I even visited an Indian casino. Are you sure you
> wouldn't like to see the MN compact? I could send it to you. The
> price is $20,000? Seems to be a number you like.

I already have several Compact copies--they all say the same stupid
thing about regulations. You have nothing of value to sell anyone.
And like I believe an addicted vp player when he says "Gee, I

haven't

been to an Indian casino in over 2 months".

Believe it. Would you like to bet another $20K? I have more than
ample proof. How about $200K?

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> Stop being a sissy and accept the fact that you are chatting with

a superior human being in many more ways than one.

More chest beating, monkey boy? Give it up.

Ha! I see you're not to thrilled to know I'm several notches above
you in video poker as well as world events knowledge; but then again,
one could only imagine the thrill you DO get from being allowed to
chat with a personality such as myself. Would you like an autographed
copy of my latest book?

> Be a man, step up to
> the plate, and take your whipping with honor. You're always

CRYING about something.

I'm at the plate and so far have ripped you apart with my proff

that your system is a fraud. Maybe you'd better find a relief pitcher
with a brain.

Moe crying....as expected and right on queue.

> You flip-flop the issues and twist meaning around that are so
obvious to any reader.

Dream on, monkey boy. Let's hear some facts to refute my proof or
climb back in your tree.

Already done a hundred times. You block it all out because you can't
handle any of it. Then the flip-flops begin, and it ends with where
you began.

> How stupid can you be? I know, it's old age, but try a little
harder.
> The randomness requirement is similar to Nevada's, but that's not
> what we're talking about, is it. We're talking about how those
> regulations are written into Indian Gaming Compacts, and what
> regulatory agency has the responsibility of verification. The
reason
> you have no knowledge past that point and I do is because you're
> continuing with conjecture based on insufficient data once again.

I took the time to study 2 states with a fine-toothed comb, and then

I talked to BIA. Your best bet is to call me a liar because you

have years less support than do I. So what else is new from an old
man in the frying pan??

You stated that ALL state compacts were EXACTLY like CT. I showed
where they were NOT. This attempt to cover your stupidity with more
lies is obvious.

You couldn't have showed a thing because you have no knowledge of
what's in the Ct. Compact! Jeepers professor, you can do better than
that! And I siad all state/Indian gaming compacts were based on the
Ct. one. Read my para. above again to see where the differences lie.
Then get some rest because you need it.

> I already have several Compact copies--they all say the same

stupid thing about regulations. You have nothing of value to sell
anyone. And like I believe an addicted vp player when he says "Gee, I

haven't been to an Indian casino in over 2 months".

Believe it. Would you like to bet another $20K? I have more than
ample proof. How about $200K?

First, you can't prove you haven't been anywhere. How nerdy is that
of you this time around?? Second, while I have $200k, you certainly
don't. It's so easy to see how addicted you really are. Bragging
about how many RF's you've had in some obscure amount of recent time
means just a tad to people with sense.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > Stop being a sissy and accept the fact that you are chatting

with

a superior human being in many more ways than one.
>
> More chest beating, monkey boy? Give it up.

Ha! I see you're not to thrilled to know I'm several notches above
you in video poker as well as world events knowledge;

Keep it up, monkey boy, you're looking more stupid every time. Too
bad you won't spend as much time trying to understand the
fundamentals of VP instead of making a fool out of yourself.

but then again,
one could only imagine the thrill you DO get from being allowed to
chat with a personality such as myself. Would you like an

autographed

copy of my latest book?

Nope. I have enough trash already.

>
> > Be a man, step up to
> > the plate, and take your whipping with honor. You're always
CRYING about something.
>
> I'm at the plate and so far have ripped you apart with my proff
that your system is a fraud. Maybe you'd better find a relief

pitcher

with a brain.

Moe crying....as expected and right on queue.

Got to you, didn't I? Was that supposed to be a change up? Nope,
that's the best you've got, a 50 mph fastball.

>
> > You flip-flop the issues and twist meaning around that are so
> obvious to any reader.
>
> Dream on, monkey boy. Let's hear some facts to refute my proof or
> climb back in your tree.

Already done a hundred times. You block it all out because you

can't

handle any of it. Then the flip-flops begin, and it ends with where
you began.

Not once, monkey boy. If you'd like, I can repost my proof so you can
dodge the facts one more time.

>
> > How stupid can you be? I know, it's old age, but try a little
> harder.
> > The randomness requirement is similar to Nevada's, but that's

not

> > what we're talking about, is it. We're talking about how those
> > regulations are written into Indian Gaming Compacts, and what
> > regulatory agency has the responsibility of verification. The
> reason
> > you have no knowledge past that point and I do is because

you're

> > continuing with conjecture based on insufficient data once

again.

I took the time to study 2 states with a fine-toothed comb, and

then

> I talked to BIA. Your best bet is to call me a liar because you
have years less support than do I. So what else is new from an old
man in the frying pan??
>
> You stated that ALL state compacts were EXACTLY like CT. I showed
> where they were NOT. This attempt to cover your stupidity with

more

> lies is obvious.

You couldn't have showed a thing because you have no knowledge of
what's in the Ct. Compact! Jeepers professor, you can do better

than

that!

I didn't say they were ALL the same, you did, monkey boy. All I had
to do is show ONE example to prove you wrong. That's exactly what I
did.

And I siad all state/Indian gaming compacts were based on the
Ct. one. Read my para. above again to see where the differences

lie.

Then get some rest because you need it.

And, I showed they weren't ALL based on CT. Put down the banana and
think the next time before you write something stupid.

>
> > I already have several Compact copies--they all say the same
stupid thing about regulations. You have nothing of value to sell
anyone. And like I believe an addicted vp player when he says "Gee,

I

> haven't been to an Indian casino in over 2 months".
>
> Believe it. Would you like to bet another $20K? I have more than
> ample proof. How about $200K?

First, you can't prove you haven't been anywhere.

I can prove I've not been to a MN Indian casino as you stated. I have
witnesses, credit card receipts, phone records, etc. that demonstate
exactly where I've been.

How nerdy is that
of you this time around?? Second, while I have $200k, you certainly
don't.

Would you like to bet another $200K on that statement? I'll
personally stop in Scotsdale next month with my money ...

No, you'll run and hide like a good little monkey boy and beat your
chest so everyone knows what a fool you are.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> Ha! I see you're not to thrilled to know I'm several notches

above you in video poker as well as world events knowledge;

Keep it up, monkey boy, you're looking more stupid every time. Too
bad you won't spend as much time trying to understand the
fundamentals of VP instead of making a fool out of yourself.

It's simple to see where your irritability and envy comes from each
and every time your bring up my unique video poker prowess.

> but then again,
> one could only imagine the thrill you DO get from being allowed

to chat with a personality such as myself. Would you like an

autographed copy of my latest book?

Nope. I have enough trash already.

As in "trailer park"? I throw MY trash out. From what I hear from my
publisher, better get yours while the supply lasts.

> > I'm at the plate and so far have ripped you apart with my proff
> that your system is a fraud. Maybe you'd better find a relief
pitcher
> with a brain.
>
> Moe crying....as expected and right on queue.

Got to you, didn't I? Was that supposed to be a change up? Nope,
that's the best you've got, a 50 mph fastball.

You don't do well with humor attempts--although old people can muster
up lots of excitement over a reduced corn on their left foot.

> Already done a hundred times. You block it all out because you
can't handle any of it. Then the flip-flops begin, and it ends with

where you began.

Not once, monkey boy. If you'd like, I can repost my proof so you

can dodge the facts one more time.

Go ahead. Do it and stop all the wild promises! You'll just look dumb
one more time in addition to old.

> You couldn't have showed a thing because you have no knowledge of
> what's in the Ct. Compact! Jeepers professor, you can do better
than that!

I didn't say they were ALL the same, you did, monkey boy. All I had
to do is show ONE example to prove you wrong. That's exactly what I
did.

> And I said all state/Indian gaming compacts were based on the
> Ct. one. Read my para. above again to see where the differences
lie. Then get some rest because you need it.

And, I showed they weren't ALL based on CT. Put down the banana and
think the next time before you write something stupid.

You showed nothing--just your babbling words once again. I explained
how every US tribal gaming compact is deveed, and because you don't
know beans from bananas, you say Minnesota's isn't. You're just as
weak here as in your vague video poker input. You set that pattern
long ago.

> First, you can't prove you haven't been anywhere.

I can prove I've not been to a MN Indian casino as you stated. I

have witnesses, credit card receipts, phone records, etc. that
demonstate exactly where I've been.

OK bozo, sorry to make you look dumb, stupid and ignorant yet
AGAIN....But, your 'witnesses' aren't with you 24/7, phone records
and (hahaha "CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS") only tell where you've been. How
dense can you be?? And again (as if anyone needed to see your BS
failing you one more time), you are not able to provide proof of any
kind showing my contention is incorrect. Man, I'm so sorry for
ridiculing you so, but YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

> How nerdy is that
> of you this time around?? Second, while I have $200k, you

certainly don't.

Would you like to bet another $200K on that statement? I'll
personally stop in Scotsdale next month with my money ...

Be clear, professor. What's the bet? Bring the cash, and we have a
$200k bet that you don't have it. And then we'll bet $500k that I DO
have it. So that's a cool $700k you need to bring. Certainly, for
Mr. "I gots a whole 8 Royals in 6 weeks and I'm waaaay ahead after my
career as a patent-grinding SW programmer" -- that's not much of a
challenge. Oh, I know you only play 25c & 50c games because you just
like to kill time after stepping one foot in the grave when you could
actually be playing the $100 machines all the time, but I understand.
I really do.

No, you'll run and hide like a good little monkey boy and beat your
chest so everyone knows what a fool you are.

I'm glad you said 'beat your chest' here. The last time you went off
on a tangent, I had to straighten you out enough to embarrass you not
to respond to it--and indeed, deleting it from the post.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > but then again,
> > one could only imagine the thrill you DO get from being allowed
to chat with a personality such as myself. Would you like an
> autographed copy of my latest book?
>
> Nope. I have enough trash already.

As in "trailer park"? I throw MY trash out.

Yep, right here on this forum.

>
> > > I'm at the plate and so far have ripped you apart with my

proff

> > that your system is a fraud. Maybe you'd better find a relief
> pitcher
> > with a brain.
> >
> > Moe crying....as expected and right on queue.
>
> Got to you, didn't I? Was that supposed to be a change up? Nope,
> that's the best you've got, a 50 mph fastball.

You don't do well with humor attempts--although old people can

muster

up lots of excitement over a reduced corn on their left foot.

Now that was intelligent. Best you can do, monkey boy?

>
> > Already done a hundred times. You block it all out because you
> can't handle any of it. Then the flip-flops begin, and it ends

with

where you began.
>
> Not once, monkey boy. If you'd like, I can repost my proof so you
can dodge the facts one more time.

Go ahead. Do it and stop all the wild promises! You'll just look

dumb

one more time in addition to old.

OK. Here's exactly what I stated just a couple of posts ago.

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.

>
> > You couldn't have showed a thing because you have no knowledge

of

> > what's in the Ct. Compact! Jeepers professor, you can do better
> than that!
>
> I didn't say they were ALL the same, you did, monkey boy. All I

had

> to do is show ONE example to prove you wrong. That's exactly what

I

> did.
>
> > And I said all state/Indian gaming compacts were based on the
> > Ct. one. Read my para. above again to see where the differences
> lie. Then get some rest because you need it.
>
> And, I showed they weren't ALL based on CT. Put down the banana

and

> think the next time before you write something stupid.

You showed nothing--just your babbling words once again.

I asked you if you wanted a copy of the MN compact. Is this what you
call "babbling words"? I can send it to you or, hint hint, it's on
the MN state website.

I explained
how every US tribal gaming compact is deveed, and because you don't
know beans from bananas, you say Minnesota's isn't. You're just as
weak here as in your vague video poker input. You set that pattern
long ago.

Still can't admit you were wrong, can you?

>
> > First, you can't prove you haven't been anywhere.
>
> I can prove I've not been to a MN Indian casino as you stated. I
have witnesses, credit card receipts, phone records, etc. that
demonstate exactly where I've been.

OK bozo, sorry to make you look dumb, stupid and ignorant yet
AGAIN....But, your 'witnesses' aren't with you 24/7, phone records
and (hahaha "CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS") only tell where you've been.

How

dense can you be?? And again (as if anyone needed to see your BS
failing you one more time), you are not able to provide proof of

any

kind showing my contention is incorrect. Man, I'm so sorry for
ridiculing you so, but YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Since these records put me over 1600 miles away from MN each and
every day for the last 2 months I think it would be accepted as proof
by any reasonable jury. More facts for you to disregard.

>
> > How nerdy is that
> > of you this time around?? Second, while I have $200k, you
certainly don't.
>
> Would you like to bet another $200K on that statement? I'll
> personally stop in Scotsdale next month with my money ...

Be clear, professor. What's the bet?

Boy, are you slow.

Bring the cash, and we have a
$200k bet that you don't have it.

If ever a more stupid reply has been uttered … Your saying that if
I show up with $200K we have a bet I don't have it??? Of course,
since I just showed up with it I must have it.

And then we'll bet $500k that I DO
have it. So that's a cool $700k you need to bring.

Even though I could manage the 700K, that's not the bet. You are
attempting to renege on your original offer just like everytime you
say "would you like to bet". One more reason you such a loser.

Certainly, for
Mr. "I gots a whole 8 Royals in 6 weeks and I'm waaaay ahead after

my

career as a patent-grinding SW programmer" -- that's not much of a
challenge.

No much. Your point?

>
> No, you'll run and hide like a good little monkey boy and beat

your

> chest so everyone knows what a fool you are.

I'm glad you said 'beat your chest' here. The last time you went

off

on a tangent, I had to straighten you out enough to embarrass you

not

to respond to it--and indeed, deleting it from the post.

So far you have never "straighten"ed anyone out. That's because you
ignore the facts all the time. I delete most of your garbage remarks
to keep these notes from getting too large. I only do it when I've
made my point and it is obvious you will ramble ad infinitum. I
suspect I'll have to delete the $200K bet topic next since I'm 100%
sure you'll never take it, but continue to renege/ramble on anyway.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

> As in "trailer park"? I throw MY trash out.

Yep, right here on this forum.

And you eat it all up as if it were specially prepared just for
Dicky.

> > > Moe crying....as expected and right on queue.
> >
> > Got to you, didn't I? Was that supposed to be a change up?

Nope, that's the best you've got, a 50 mph fastball.

>
> You don't do well with humor attempts--although old people can
muster up lots of excitement over a reduced corn on their left

foot.

Now that was intelligent. Best you can do, monkey boy?

More humor? What? Do you have a license for all that wit??

> Go ahead. Do it and stop all the wild promises! You'll just look
dumb one more time in addition to old.

OK. Here's exactly what I stated just a couple of posts ago.

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

downas 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.

That's supposed to be PROOF? HAHA!! That's an old man's jealous
opinion who's hurtin' from video poker losses. You 'don't care'
because to care would mean you'd have to do some real research on
the subject.

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.

That's not all you said, Mr. neurotic. And you submitted no
supporting evidence when referring to 'my progressive system'. A
poor job....very poor. Not much of a start foe the professor.

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).

The same old tune with no support....yet again. Should have kept it
simple by saying "Play negative machines perfectly for eternity and
you will lose: Play positive machines perfectly for eternity and,
GUESS WHAT, you Will WIN!!" Ho-Hum. Now do you finally see why I
developed a winning Play Strategy in the first place?

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

Apparently not.

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 we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture, please?

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

When you lead as boring a life as you do up in Minnesota (and
everyone can see just how bored you are by spending your spare time
being buried by my common sense) you begin to talk yourself into
being as famous as I am in order to attain a certain level of self-
respect. All that math goddledegook is just you reaching back into
your work career for some fond memories of nerds-at-work.

babbling words once again.

I asked you if you wanted a copy of the MN compact. Is this what

you call "babbling words"? I can send it to you or, hint hint, it's
on the MN state website.

Hello genius. I have the basic Indian Gaming Compact for US
states!!! It's no special thing as you seem to think it is by it's
being on an obscure Minn. site!

> OK bozo, sorry to make you look dumb, stupid and ignorant yet
> AGAIN....But, your 'witnesses' aren't with you 24/7, phone

records and (hahaha "CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS") only tell where you've
been. How dense can you be?? And again (as if anyone needed to see
your BS failing you one more time), you are not able to provide
proof of any kind showing my contention is incorrect. Man, I'm so
sorry for ridiculing you so, but YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Since these records put me over 1600 miles away from MN each and
every day for the last 2 months I think it would be accepted as

proof by any reasonable jury. More facts for you to disregard.

Keep reaching, but now it's time for you to provide absolute proof
(you MUST know what that is by now)--just as if it were you asking
for more neurotic proof from me again, professor! You and I both
know you A) Can't stay away from casinos REGARDLESS of where they
are B) You can't ever again go on a vacation with or without the
missus that does not include video poker play C) You'll jump at the
chance to stop at ANY Indian casino on a road trip that's more than
an hour and a half long.

Boy, are you slow.

> Bring the cash, and we have a
> $200k bet that you don't have it.

If ever a more stupid reply has been uttered ... Your saying that

if I show up with $200K we have a bet I don't have it??? Of
course, since I just showed up with it I must have it.

WRONG, and you're not as smart as you like to believe you are! Think
about it, Mr. EX-Wizard. Think of it as one of those puzzles you
nerds kept trying to spit the answers out of your food-filled mouths
on in front of all the hot girls in high school.

> And then we'll bet $500k that I DO
> have it. So that's a cool $700k you need to bring.

Even though I could manage the 700K, that's not the bet. You are
attempting to renege on your original offer just like everytime

you say "would you like to bet". One more reason you such a loser.

Just upping the stakes, professor. I'm sure you could 'manage' any
amount--typical addict in gambling to say something like that. I bet
it made you feel comfortable with yourself.

> I'm glad you said 'beat your chest' here. The last time you went
off on a tangent, I had to straighten you out enough to embarrass

you not to respond to it--and indeed, deleting it from the post.

So far you have never "straighten"ed anyone out. That's because

you ignore the facts all the time. I delete most of your garbage
remarks

to keep these notes from getting too large. I only do it when I've
made my point and it is obvious you will ramble ad infinitum. I
suspect I'll have to delete the $200K bet topic next since I'm

100%

sure you'll never take it, but continue to renege/ramble on anyway.

What else could one expect but a wordy remark trying to make a point
that you're once again not sure how to do. BTW--If you didn't get
it, I'm here, waiting for you to show up, with both the $200k and my
bet of $500k in-hand. Again, I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for Mr.
Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
liberal....or to accept it like a man.

I delete most of your garbage remarks

to keep these notes from getting too large. I only do it when I've
made my point and it is obvious you will ramble ad infinitum. I
suspect I'll have to delete the $200K bet topic next since I'm

100%

···

sure you'll never take it, but continue to renege/ramble on anyway.

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> > Go ahead. Do it and stop all the wild promises! You'll just

look

> dumb one more time in addition to old.
>
> OK. Here's exactly what I stated just a couple of posts ago.
>
> 1) The overall results of YOUR progressive system can be broken
downas 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.

That's supposed to be PROOF? HAHA!! That's an old man's jealous
opinion who's hurtin' from video poker losses. You 'don't care'
because to care would mean you'd have to do some real research on
the subject.

You break in while the logic is being laid out. Could it possibly be
that Rob is going to object to this obvious proof? He didn't even
finish the proof before his comment. Rob can't even cleverly try to
hide his fraudulent position.

>
> 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.

That's not all you said, Mr. neurotic. And you submitted no
supporting evidence when referring to 'my progressive system'. A
poor job....very poor. Not much of a start foe the professor.

I thought you understood how YOUR OWN progressive system works. Maybe
that assumption was too much. The problem with your argument here is
that my statement is valid for ALL progressive VP systems. Note that
Rob didn't say there was anything incorrect in my statement. That's
because there wasn't. Come on Rob, you can do better than this.

>
> 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).

The same old tune with no support....yet again.

If you object to 2) you're position MUST be everyone can win playing
negative machines, which also means the casinos will all lose money
on all their negative VP machines. Seems to me like a pretty poor
position on your part. If this is not your position, then you MUST
agree with what I stated.

Should have kept it
simple by saying "Play negative machines perfectly for eternity and
you will lose: Play positive machines perfectly for eternity and,
GUESS WHAT, you Will WIN!!" Ho-Hum. Now do you finally see why I
developed a winning Play Strategy in the first place?

Maybe you do think EVERYONE will win playing negative machines. If
you do, then this discussion is useless. Is that your position?

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

Apparently not.

Apparently it was, since you have now switched your previous position
that most people will lose on negative machines.

>
> 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 we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture, please?

Nothing theoretical here. Your only out is to take the position that
everyone will win on negative machines. Pretty stupid position but
I'd be glad to prove that wrong too.

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

When you lead as boring a life as you do up in Minnesota (and
everyone can see just how bored you are by spending your spare time
being buried by my common sense) you begin to talk yourself into
being as famous as I am in order to attain a certain level of self-
respect. All that math goddledegook is just you reaching back into
your work career for some fond memories of nerds-at-work.

It appears that monkey boys' only response is more chest beating.
You've provided ABSOLUTELY nothing to refute what I provided. I can
pretty much ignore your position that everyone wins playing negative
machines since I know you will deny it in your next post.

>
> > OK bozo, sorry to make you look dumb, stupid and ignorant yet
> > AGAIN....But, your 'witnesses' aren't with you 24/7, phone
records and (hahaha "CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS") only tell where you've
been. How dense can you be?? And again (as if anyone needed to see
your BS failing you one more time), you are not able to provide
proof of any kind showing my contention is incorrect. Man, I'm so
sorry for ridiculing you so, but YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

>
> Since these records put me over 1600 miles away from MN each and
> every day for the last 2 months I think it would be accepted as
proof by any reasonable jury. More facts for you to disregard.

Keep reaching, but now it's time for you to provide absolute proof
(you MUST know what that is by now)--just as if it were you asking
for more neurotic proof from me again, professor! You and I both
know you A) Can't stay away from casinos REGARDLESS of where they
are B) You can't ever again go on a vacation with or without the
missus that does not include video poker play C) You'll jump at the
chance to stop at ANY Indian casino on a road trip that's more than
an hour and a half long.

A) Wrong.
B) Wrong, and I'm not on vacation
C) Wrong.

That makes you 0-3. Pretty much average for you.

>
> Boy, are you slow.
>
> > Bring the cash, and we have a
> > $200k bet that you don't have it.
>
> If ever a more stupid reply has been uttered … Your saying that
if I show up with $200K we have a bet I don't have it??? Of
course, since I just showed up with it I must have it.

WRONG, and you're not as smart as you like to believe you are!

Think

about it, Mr. EX-Wizard. Think of it as one of those puzzles you
nerds kept trying to spit the answers out of your food-filled

mouths

on in front of all the hot girls in high school.

I am simply trying to determine whether you will take the bet or
renege like you have on all our previous bets. Put up or shut up,
monkey boy.

>
> > And then we'll bet $500k that I DO
> > have it. So that's a cool $700k you need to bring.
>
> Even though I could manage the 700K, that's not the bet. You are
> attempting to renege on your original offer just like everytime
you say "would you like to bet". One more reason you such a loser.

Just upping the stakes, professor. I'm sure you could 'manage' any
amount--typical addict in gambling to say something like that. I

bet

it made you feel comfortable with yourself.

Like I said, Rob is now trying to renege on his original bet. You are
such a loser and coward, monkey boy. I suspect you don't even have
the 200K. You probably don't have 20K.

>
> > I'm glad you said 'beat your chest' here. The last time you

went

> off on a tangent, I had to straighten you out enough to embarrass
you not to respond to it--and indeed, deleting it from the post.
>
> So far you have never "straighten"ed anyone out. That's because
you ignore the facts all the time. I delete most of your garbage
remarks
> to keep these notes from getting too large. I only do it when

I've

> made my point and it is obvious you will ramble ad infinitum. I
> suspect I'll have to delete the $200K bet topic next since I'm
100%
> sure you'll never take it, but continue to renege/ramble on

anyway.

What else could one expect but a wordy remark trying to make a

point

that you're once again not sure how to do. BTW--If you didn't get
it, I'm here, waiting for you to show up, with both the $200k and

my

bet of $500k in-hand. Again, I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for Mr.
Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
liberal....or to accept it like a man.

OK. Let's settle first on the $200K. When would you like to meet?
And, before I go, you need to send me a notarized letter agreeing to
the bet and proving you have the $200K in hand. I realize that you'll
still renege on the bet, but then I can post the letter here showing
you as a liar and coward.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> That's supposed to be PROOF? HAHA!! That's an old man's jealous
> opinion who's hurtin' from video poker losses. You 'don't care'
> because to care would mean you'd have to do some real research on
> the subject.

You break in while the logic is being laid out. Could it possibly

be

that Rob is going to object to this obvious proof? He didn't even
finish the proof before his comment. Rob can't even cleverly try to
hide his fraudulent position.

> That's not all you said, Mr. neurotic. And you submitted no
> supporting evidence when referring to 'my progressive system'. A
> poor job....very poor. Not much of a start foe the professor.

I thought you understood how YOUR OWN progressive system works.

Maybe that assumption was too much. The problem with your argument
here is that my statement is valid for ALL progressive VP systems.
Note that Rob didn't say there was anything incorrect in my
statement. That's because there wasn't. Come on Rob, you can do
better than this.

Your statement is valid for the use only within your own envious
mind. It's such a general supposition with no factual
evidenve....AGAIN. Big surprise.

> The same old tune with no support....yet again.

If you object to 2) you're position MUST be everyone can win

playing negative machines, which also means the casinos will all lose
money on all their negative VP machines. Seems to me like a pretty
poor position on your part. If this is not your position, then you
MUST agree with what I stated.

Just how much of an imbecile can you be? Everyone CAN win playing
negative machines, Mr. Wizard. Even you with all your phobia about it.

> Should have kept it
> simple by saying "Play negative machines perfectly for eternity

and

> you will lose: Play positive machines perfectly for eternity and,
> GUESS WHAT, you Will WIN!!" Ho-Hum. Now do you finally see why I
> developed a winning Play Strategy in the first place?

Maybe you do think EVERYONE will win playing negative machines. If
you do, then this discussion is useless. Is that your position?

How can I respond to such a statement that misuses the English
language so broadly. What are you trying to say? Remember, you're
talking to a person with much more intelligence than you, so please
TRY to communicate. That requires a little aforethought.

> > I hope this is still clear. Nothing too challenging here.
>
> Apparently not.

Apparently it was, since you have now switched your previous

position that most people will lose on negative machines.

Apparently not. If they play like you do they'll lose....just as much
as they would if they played positive machines. You people won't quit
a machine until all your money's gone or you hit a royal.

> 1)you are summing negative numbers which always yields a negative
> > result.
>
> Can we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture, please?

Nothing theoretical here. Your only out is to take the position

that everyone will win on negative machines. Pretty stupid position
but I'd be glad to prove that wrong too.

Read what I said above, and if you didn't make believe what was said
so much you'd look like a young man with a brain again.

> When you lead as boring a life as you do up in Minnesota (and
> everyone can see just how bored you are by spending your spare

time being buried by my common sense) you begin to talk yourself into

> being as famous as I am in order to attain a certain level of

self-respect. All that math goddledegook is just you reaching back
into your work career for some fond memories of nerds-at-work.

It appears that monkey boys' only response is more chest beating.
You've provided ABSOLUTELY nothing to refute what I provided. I can
pretty much ignore your position that everyone wins playing

negative machines since I know you will deny it in your next post.

More support for the reality of a nerds-at-work memory.

> >
> Keep reaching, but now it's time for you to provide absolute

proof

> (you MUST know what that is by now)--just as if it were you

asking

> for more neurotic proof from me again, professor! You and I both
> know you A) Can't stay away from casinos REGARDLESS of where they
> are B) You can't ever again go on a vacation with or without the
> missus that does not include video poker play C) You'll jump at

the

> chance to stop at ANY Indian casino on a road trip that's more

than

> an hour and a half long.

A) Wrong.
B) Wrong, and I'm not on vacation
C) Wrong.

Like we expected any other response!

> WRONG, and you're not as smart as you like to believe you are!
Think about it, Mr. EX-Wizard. Think of it as one of those puzzles

you nerds kept trying to spit the answers out of your food-filled

mouths on in front of all the hot girls in high school.

I am simply trying to determine whether you will take the bet or
renege like you have on all our previous bets. Put up or shut up,
monkey boy.

It's already been put-up, regardless of how you're trying to wiggle
your way out.

> Just upping the stakes, professor. I'm sure you could 'manage'

any amount--typical addict in gambling to say something like that. I

bet it made you feel comfortable with yourself.

Like I said, Rob is now trying to renege on his original bet. You

are such a loser and coward, monkey boy. I suspect you don't even
have the 200K. You probably don't have 20K.

I put up. Will you? You might be able to sell your slide rule for 50
bucks!! HAHAHAHA!!!!

> What else could one expect but a wordy remark trying to make a
point that you're once again not sure how to do. BTW--If you didn't

get

> it, I'm here, waiting for you to show up, with both the $200k and
my
> bet of $500k in-hand. Again, I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for

Mr.

> Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
> liberal....or to accept it like a man.

OK. Let's settle first on the $200K. When would you like to meet?
And, before I go, you need to send me a notarized letter agreeing

to the bet and proving you have the $200K in hand. I realize that
you'll still renege on the bet, but then I can post the letter here
showing you as a liar and coward.

I will have $700k in hand---cash. Get out of your little world and
make the complete bet. The letter will be drawn up as soon as you
agree, but because of your inexperience there's a little bit more to
it that that in order to make it a binding document.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > That's supposed to be PROOF? HAHA!! That's an old man's jealous
> > opinion who's hurtin' from video poker losses. You 'don't care'
> > because to care would mean you'd have to do some real research

on

> > the subject.
>
> You break in while the logic is being laid out. Could it possibly
be
> that Rob is going to object to this obvious proof? He didn't even
> finish the proof before his comment. Rob can't even cleverly try

to

> hide his fraudulent position.
>
> > That's not all you said, Mr. neurotic. And you submitted no
> > supporting evidence when referring to 'my progressive system'.

A

> > poor job....very poor. Not much of a start foe the professor.
>
> I thought you understood how YOUR OWN progressive system works.
Maybe that assumption was too much. The problem with your argument
here is that my statement is valid for ALL progressive VP systems.
Note that Rob didn't say there was anything incorrect in my
statement. That's because there wasn't. Come on Rob, you can do
better than this.

Your statement is valid for the use only within your own envious
mind. It's such a general supposition with no factual
evidenve....AGAIN. Big surprise.

"factual evidence"? All I said was most people will lose on a
negative machine. If that's not factual, explain why not.

>
> > The same old tune with no support....yet again.
>
> If you object to 2) you're position MUST be everyone can win
playing negative machines, which also means the casinos will all

lose

money on all their negative VP machines. Seems to me like a pretty
poor position on your part. If this is not your position, then you
MUST agree with what I stated.

Just how much of an imbecile can you be? Everyone CAN win playing
negative machines, Mr. Wizard. Even you with all your phobia about

it.

However, not "everyone" WILL. Some will as I clearly stated in 2).
However, your position must be EVERYONE WILL WIN on negative machines
to object to 2). Not only that they will win long term. Is that your
position?

>
> > Should have kept it
> > simple by saying "Play negative machines perfectly for eternity
and
> > you will lose: Play positive machines perfectly for eternity

and,

> > GUESS WHAT, you Will WIN!!" Ho-Hum. Now do you finally see why

I

> > developed a winning Play Strategy in the first place?
>
> Maybe you do think EVERYONE will win playing negative machines.

If

> you do, then this discussion is useless. Is that your position?

How can I respond to such a statement that misuses the English
language so broadly. What are you trying to say? Remember, you're
talking to a person with much more intelligence than you, so please
TRY to communicate. That requires a little aforethought.

My statement was perfectly clear. I'm not suprised you'd resort to
going "huh, what'd ya say?" while running away. I think that's why I
crowned you the Princess of Cowards.

>
> > 1)you are summing negative numbers which always yields a

negative

> > > result.
> >
> > Can we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture,

please?

>
> Nothing theoretical here. Your only out is to take the position
that everyone will win on negative machines. Pretty stupid position
but I'd be glad to prove that wrong too.

Read what I said above, and if you didn't make believe what was

said

so much you'd look like a young man with a brain again.

You haven't said anything. My proof still stands while you're running
for the hills.

>
> > When you lead as boring a life as you do up in Minnesota (and
> > everyone can see just how bored you are by spending your spare
time being buried by my common sense) you begin to talk yourself

into

> > being as famous as I am in order to attain a certain level of
self-respect. All that math goddledegook is just you reaching back
into your work career for some fond memories of nerds-at-work.
>
> It appears that monkey boys' only response is more chest beating.
> You've provided ABSOLUTELY nothing to refute what I provided. I

can

> pretty much ignore your position that everyone wins playing
negative machines since I know you will deny it in your next post.

More support for the reality of a nerds-at-work memory.

Keep running monkey boy. It fits you to a tee.

> > >
> > Keep reaching, but now it's time for you to provide absolute
proof
> > (you MUST know what that is by now)--just as if it were you
asking
> > for more neurotic proof from me again, professor! You and I

both

> > know you A) Can't stay away from casinos REGARDLESS of where

they

> > are B) You can't ever again go on a vacation with or without

the

> > missus that does not include video poker play C) You'll jump at
the
> > chance to stop at ANY Indian casino on a road trip that's more
than
> > an hour and a half long.
>
> A) Wrong.
> B) Wrong, and I'm not on vacation
> C) Wrong.

Like we expected any other response!

Then you should quit making up stuff and stick to the facts.

>
> > What else could one expect but a wordy remark trying to make a
> point that you're once again not sure how to do. BTW--If you

didn't

get
> > it, I'm here, waiting for you to show up, with both the $200k

and

> my
> > bet of $500k in-hand. Again, I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for
Mr.
> > Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
> > liberal....or to accept it like a man.
>
> OK. Let's settle first on the $200K. When would you like to meet?
> And, before I go, you need to send me a notarized letter agreeing
to the bet and proving you have the $200K in hand. I realize that
you'll still renege on the bet, but then I can post the letter here
showing you as a liar and coward.

I will have $700k in hand---cash. Get out of your little world and
make the complete bet. The letter will be drawn up as soon as you
agree, but because of your inexperience there's a little bit more

to

it that that in order to make it a binding document.

I'm not worried about a binding document since I know you'll renege
in the end. I just wanted the notarized letter so I can PROVE you
reneged. You may be incomparably stupid, but you're not going to give
me $200K just for me proving I have $200K.

But, if you persist, I've come up with an easier way to prove I have
the $200K you bet I didn't have. The next time you're in LV we can
meet at the Bellagio (or whereever you like). I will take you to an
internet terminal and sign on to my account at my well known
financial companies' website. You can see for yourself that I have
WELL OVER $200K. Don't forget to bring your $200K with you. You can
leave it with me when you leave.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> Your statement is valid for the use only within your own envious
> mind. It's such a general supposition with no factual
> evidenve....AGAIN. Big surprise.

"factual evidence"? All I said was most people will lose on a
negative machine. If that's not factual, explain why not.

Because players don't automatically HAVE to lose on 99% machines--
even if they play them millions of hands on a trip. And since 'MOST'
people don't want to lose, if they knew what they were doing then
they'd fare just as good or better than advantage players playing
those same games on positive machines. I know you'll go into tilt
over this, but maybe it'll finally do you some good.

> Just how much of an imbecile can you be? Everyone CAN win playing
> negative machines, Mr. Wizard. Even you with all your phobia

about it.

However, not "everyone" WILL.

No kidding.... And here's a flash: Not everyone will win on positive
machines either, in fact, there's such a minute difference that in
the amount of time played for almost everyone alive, the results will
be very very close.

> How can I respond to such a statement that misuses the English
> language so broadly. What are you trying to say? Remember, you're
> talking to a person with much more intelligence than you, so

please TRY to communicate. That requires a little aforethought.

My statement was perfectly clear. I'm not suprised you'd resort to
going "huh, what'd ya say?" while running away. I think that's why

I crowned you the Princess of Cowards.

Usually I goat you into re-writing the entire BS question, but you're
finally catching on. Congratulations, professor. now how long did it
take to potty train you?

> 1)you are summing negative numbers which always yields a

negativeresult.
> > >

> Can we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture, please?

> >
> > Nothing theoretical here. Your only out is to take the position
> that everyone will win on negative machines. Pretty stupid

position

> but I'd be glad to prove that wrong too.
>
> Read what I said above, and if you didn't make believe what was
said so much you'd look like a young man with a brain again.

You haven't said anything. My proof still stands while you're

running for the hills.

Still waiting for that elusive proof to prove me wrong. I play
negative games and I win. Anyone could, but I don't care in the least
how anyone does besides me, so my 230 sessions are all that counts--
and it's a good enough sampling for many players to be interested in
learning more. Moreover, I have so many of your so-called 'advantage-
play' enthusiasts contact me and say "there's just no way to beat
this game--does your way REALLY work" that I have a much broader
range of examples to draw upon than any theory you can conjure up
with make-believe players.

> More support for the reality of a nerds-at-work memory.

Keep running monkey boy. It fits you to a tee.

OK. Geeks with slide-rule Dicks.

Then you should quit making up stuff and stick to the facts.

Let's see....It's YOU who create theoretical positions on the game
and YOU who makes believe he doesn't believe what I say. Facts and
you just won't dance.

I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for

> Mr. Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
> > > liberal....or to accept it like a man.
> >
> > OK. Let's settle first on the $200K. When would you like to

meet?

> I will have $700k in hand---cash. Get out of your little world

and make the complete bet. The letter will be drawn up as soon as you

> agree, but because of your inexperience there's a little bit more
to it that that in order to make it a binding document.

I'm not worried about a binding document since I know you'll renege
in the end. I just wanted the notarized letter so I can PROVE you
reneged. You may be incomparably stupid, but you're not going to

give

me $200K just for me proving I have $200K.

But, if you persist, I've come up with an easier way to prove I

have

the $200K you bet I didn't have. The next time you're in LV we can
meet at the Bellagio (or whereever you like). I will take you to an
internet terminal and sign on to my account at my well known
financial companies' website. You can see for yourself that I have
WELL OVER $200K. Don't forget to bring your $200K with you. You can
leave it with me when you leave.

You sure know the 'wiggle & squirm'! I was even going to give you a
break on your coming to Scottsdale, because I can get $700k cash and
not have to travel with it like you would likely have to do. But you
just won't learn. Backing out of a bet with me makes you look dumb,
poor and insincere. And you know what else makes you look like a
Minnesota peeny-weeny? You make a BIG deal about winning '$5k' in 2
months. How long will that last an addicted player like you? That's
like your hero Dancer bragging about winning $1mil in 6 months before
he began to slowly (well, not so slowly) but surely dump it and keep
it hushed up.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > Your statement is valid for the use only within your own

envious

> > mind. It's such a general supposition with no factual
> > evidenve....AGAIN. Big surprise.
>
> "factual evidence"? All I said was most people will lose on a
> negative machine. If that's not factual, explain why not.

Because players don't automatically HAVE to lose on 99% machines--

That's why I said a FEW may win. Luck is still a factor as you've
shown by your claimed results.

even if they play them millions of hands on a trip. And

since 'MOST'

people don't want to lose, if they knew what they were doing then
they'd fare just as good or better than advantage players playing
those same games on positive machines. I know you'll go into tilt
over this, but maybe it'll finally do you some good.

All I said was MOST players will lose playing negative machines. If
you disagree with this then you MUST be claming that MOST players can
win playing negatives machines. Is this what you are claiming? Yes or
No will suffice.

>
> > Just how much of an imbecile can you be? Everyone CAN win

playing

> > negative machines, Mr. Wizard. Even you with all your phobia
about it.
>
> However, not "everyone" WILL.

No kidding.... And here's a flash: Not everyone will win on

positive

machines either, in fact, there's such a minute difference that in
the amount of time played for almost everyone alive, the results

will

be very very close.

No they won't. Just a small (1%) negative difference will take a BIG
bite out of the average gamblers bankroll over time.

> > How can I respond to such a statement that misuses the English
> > language so broadly. What are you trying to say? Remember,

you're

> > talking to a person with much more intelligence than you, so
please TRY to communicate. That requires a little aforethought.
>
> My statement was perfectly clear. I'm not suprised you'd resort

to

> going "huh, what'd ya say?" while running away. I think that's

why

I crowned you the Princess of Cowards.

Usually I goat you into re-writing the entire BS question, but

you're

finally catching on. Congratulations, professor. now how long did

it

take to potty train you?

Another attempt to sound smart by monkey boy? Nope, just another
example of his stupidity. PS. I don't mind copying and pasting my
previous posts. It reaffirms I know exactly what I'm talking about.

>
> 1)you are summing negative numbers which always yields a
> negativeresult.
> > > >
> Can we have another YAWN at this theoretical conjecture, please?
> > >
> > > Nothing theoretical here. Your only out is to take the

position

> > that everyone will win on negative machines. Pretty stupid
position
> > but I'd be glad to prove that wrong too.
> >
> > Read what I said above, and if you didn't make believe what was
> said so much you'd look like a young man with a brain again.
>
> You haven't said anything. My proof still stands while you're
running for the hills.

Still waiting for that elusive proof to prove me wrong. I play
negative games and I win.

Like I said, a few may win. Yawn. And, the longer they play the fewer
there will be ...

Anyone could,

OK. You really are saying ANYONE can win playing negative machines. I
knew you'd admit it soon. You are such a fool. Now that you've said
it I expect ALL the casinos to go bankrupt instead of making record
profits ever month.

but I don't care in the least
how anyone does besides me,

Unless you can sell them your fraudulent system.

so my 230 sessions are all that counts--
and it's a good enough sampling for many players to be interested

in

learning more. Moreover, I have so many of your so-

called 'advantage-

play' enthusiasts contact me and say "there's just no way to beat
this game--does your way REALLY work" that I have a much broader
range of examples to draw upon than any theory you can conjure up
with make-believe players.

Name only 10 of the "so-many" and show me their results.

>
I'm here--CASH IN HAND waiting for
> > Mr. Wizard to blab his way out of it once again like a cowardly
> > > > liberal....or to accept it like a man.
> > >
> > > OK. Let's settle first on the $200K. When would you like to
meet?
> > I will have $700k in hand---cash. Get out of your little world
and make the complete bet. The letter will be drawn up as soon as

you

> > agree, but because of your inexperience there's a little bit

more

> to it that that in order to make it a binding document.
>
> I'm not worried about a binding document since I know you'll

renege

> in the end. I just wanted the notarized letter so I can PROVE you
> reneged. You may be incomparably stupid, but you're not going to
give
> me $200K just for me proving I have $200K.
>
> But, if you persist, I've come up with an easier way to prove I
have
> the $200K you bet I didn't have. The next time you're in LV we

can

> meet at the Bellagio (or whereever you like). I will take you to

an

> internet terminal and sign on to my account at my well known
> financial companies' website. You can see for yourself that I

have

> WELL OVER $200K. Don't forget to bring your $200K with you. You

can

> leave it with me when you leave.

You sure know the 'wiggle & squirm'! I was even going to give you a
break on your coming to Scottsdale, because I can get $700k cash

YOUR offer was $200K. After we conclude that transaction we can
discuss the $700K, not before. So, monkey boy, do you have it or are
you going to run and hide one more time. As if it wasn't obvious
already ... PS. I will be traveling through Scottsdale next month if
you still want to uphold your original bet. I just thought LV would
be easier for a big time gambler like you claim to be.

What's that I hear? Monkey boy squealing .. "but, but, but" ...

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> Because players don't automatically HAVE to lose on 99% machines--

That's why I said a FEW may win. Luck is still a factor as you've
shown by your claimed results.

Where's your undisputed proof that it's only a 'few'? Actuals please,
not stupid theory. Something you've NEVER been capable of providing.
Here's another chance.

All I said was MOST players will lose playing negative machines. If
you disagree with this then you MUST be claming that MOST players

can win playing negatives machines. Is this what you are claiming?
Yes or No will suffice.

Yes, obviously, if they play my Play Strategies exactly as I do.
Negative or positive machines have nothing to do with success. That's
where you get lost, because 'negative' automatically denotes below
zero to you, and 'positive' doesn't. Not always so in gambling. It
occurs in short-term spurts, and while most people are ahead at some
time during their casino visit, most of those people leave losers
because they had no pre-set plan on when to stop when ahead. You'll
never get it because you'll want to apply long-term, unattainable
play to this and it really doesn't happen that way.

> No kidding.... And here's a flash: Not everyone will win on
positive machines either, in fact, there's such a minute difference

that in the amount of time played for almost everyone alive, the
results will be very very close.

No they won't. Just a small (1%) negative difference will take a

BIG bite out of the average gamblers bankroll over time.

First, the player doesn't automatically have to lose because you say
he does since he's playing negative machines. that's long-term theory
and not reality. Second, 1% of what? Most regular people don't play
enough for that to matter. It may to you when you look at probablity
theories and math models that mean nothing to anyone who plays, but
1% of what an average player plays? Nonsense. And it may well be that
the player can WIN 1% less. You add everything up for your
assumptions, and no one cares what anyone else does.

> Usually I goat you into re-writing the entire BS question, but
you're finally catching on. Congratulations, professor. now how

long did it take to potty train you?

Another attempt to sound smart by monkey boy? Nope, just another
example of his stupidity. PS. I don't mind copying and pasting my
previous posts. It reaffirms I know exactly what I'm talking about.

If anyone needs to 'take another look' it's certainly you.

OK. You really are saying ANYONE can win playing negative machines.

I knew you'd admit it soon. You are such a fool. Now that you've said

it I expect ALL the casinos to go bankrupt instead of making record
profits ever month.

Here's where your 'take another look' might come in handy again. Read
what I said. Anyone COULD....meaning if they were serious about
playing and wanted to learn my Play Strategies exactly as I play them.

> but I don't care in the least
> how anyone does besides me,

Unless you can sell them your fraudulent system.

I sell them no systems. You know that. And if they win or lose their
life savings, I don't care and neither do you. All I can do is try to
help, and it's all for free and most of the time at my expense.

Name only 10 of the "so-many" and show me their results.

You're always looking for what you know is either not on paper or
something that would require other people's permission. Why don't you
pose the question on vpfree with your e-mail address for them to
respond to. There's several thousand members there, and I have 4700
who get my e-newsletter. Some are on vpfree for sure. Don't forget to
ask who's followed it EXACTLY as I specify and has never waivered.

> You sure know the 'wiggle & squirm'! I was even going to give you

a break on your coming to Scottsdale, because I can get $700k cash

YOUR offer was $200K. After we conclude that transaction we can
discuss the $700K, not before. So, monkey boy, do you have it or

are you going to run and hide one more time. As if it wasn't obvious

already ... PS. I will be traveling through Scottsdale next month

if you still want to uphold your original bet. I just thought LV
would be easier for a big time gambler like you claim to be.

No, YOUR offer was for $200k. Mine was $700. Get the facts straight.
You can't wiggle out so easily, although I always knew that was your
intention. I'll be here, and give me a 1-day's notice to get the
cash. And what are you coming to a nice place like this for? Oh, I
know. You want to check out the INDIAN casinos!! Always knew you
weren't able to go on a no-video-poker playing vacation! You ought to
try Hawaii sometime....or are you waiting for those planes to come
along with video-poker-for-real in each seat??

···

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

What's that I hear? Monkey boy squealing .. "but, but, but" ...

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > Because players don't automatically HAVE to lose on 99%

machines--

>
> That's why I said a FEW may win. Luck is still a factor as you've
> shown by your claimed results.

Where's your undisputed proof that it's only a 'few'? Actuals

please,

not stupid theory. Something you've NEVER been capable of

providing.

Here's another chance.

The proof is simple. Walk into any casino, monkey boy. If the
machines weren't making money they wouldn't be there. Secondly,
winpokers' analysis code provides what's called proof by example.
Finally, if you're looking for a mathematical proof (that you'd
ignore anyway), it has to with statistics, means, std deviations and
the ole' bell curve. Are you up for it? If you think this is "stupid
theory" you are, once again, claiming ALL the fortune 500 companies
that use the EXACT same theories must be stupid. Is that your
position?

>
> All I said was MOST players will lose playing negative machines.

If

> you disagree with this then you MUST be claming that MOST players
can win playing negatives machines. Is this what you are claiming?
Yes or No will suffice.

Yes, obviously, if they play my Play Strategies exactly as I do.

That's not what I asked. Although I demonstrated in my proof that
there's NO difference between your approach and anyone else playing a
negative machine.

So, finally the truth has come out. Monkey boy Rob Singer believes
anyone can win playing a negative machine. The casinos must be
shaking in their collective boots. Thats' the net result of his
wonderous system. What a joke.

Negative or positive machines have nothing to do with success.

Of course not, since you've determined anyone can win playing
negative machines... You are such a hoot.

That's
where you get lost, because 'negative' automatically denotes below
zero to you, and 'positive' doesn't.

You got it, monkey boy. When taking the general gambling public using
any system (including yours). The AVERAGE player will LOSE money
playing negative machines. Period. The fact that there are a few
isolated winners is due to that ole' bell curve.

Not always so in gambling. It
occurs in short-term spurts, and while most people are ahead at

some

time during their casino visit,

Simply not true. Been there, know that your statement is completely
and totally false. And even those that may be ahead briefly, it's
often only a few dollars. The bell curve rules, it starts out unruly
(most people with a small loss) and shifts into it's familar shape as
people play. Just good ole stat 101.

most of those people leave losers
because they had no pre-set plan on when to stop when ahead. You'll
never get it because you'll want to apply long-term, unattainable
play to this and it really doesn't happen that way.

You make an INVALID assertion and try to follow it with statements
that assume your assertion was true. Most people are NOT ahead some
time during a session playing negative machines. It follows the bell
curve just like any other random endeavor. You've gambled enough to
KNOW that I am right. You'd rarely have to go to the second level in
your idiotic progression if it were true. It's statements like this
that show what a liar and a fraud you are.

>
> > No kidding.... And here's a flash: Not everyone will win on
> positive machines either, in fact, there's such a minute

difference

that in the amount of time played for almost everyone alive, the
results will be very very close.
>
> No they won't. Just a small (1%) negative difference will take a
BIG bite out of the average gamblers bankroll over time.

First, the player doesn't automatically have to lose because you

say

he does since he's playing negative machines. that's long-term

theory

and not reality.

No, that is reality. Remember were discussing the AVERAGE player. Not
some lucky player that happens to hit quad aces with a kicker on his
first hand.

Second, 1% of what?

What they put through the machines. If they put $1000 through then
the average loss will be $10. Hope that's not too complicated for you.

Most regular people don't play
enough for that to matter.

All your statement means is the bell curve is wider for those that
don't play as much. However, the AVERAGE value is still the same. A
few more may be big winners and a few more may be big losers. It
doesn't change the average. Try again.

It may to you when you look at probablity
theories and math models that mean nothing to anyone who plays, but
1% of what an average player plays? Nonsense. And it may well be

that

the player can WIN 1% less. You add everything up for your
assumptions, and no one cares what anyone else does.

If nonsense were valuable you'd be a rich monkey boy.

>
> > Usually I goat you into re-writing the entire BS question, but
> you're finally catching on. Congratulations, professor. now how
long did it take to potty train you?
>
> Another attempt to sound smart by monkey boy? Nope, just another
> example of his stupidity. PS. I don't mind copying and pasting my
> previous posts. It reaffirms I know exactly what I'm talking

about.

>
If anyone needs to 'take another look' it's certainly you.

More nonsense. You're doing a great job of looking stupid.

> OK. You really are saying ANYONE can win playing negative

machines.

I knew you'd admit it soon. You are such a fool. Now that you've

said

> it I expect ALL the casinos to go bankrupt instead of making

record

> profits ever month.

Here's where your 'take another look' might come in handy again.

Read

what I said. Anyone COULD....meaning if they were serious about
playing and wanted to learn my Play Strategies exactly as I play

them.

Nope. Won't work. The AVERAGE player will still end up right at the
peak of the bell curve. Sorry but your system, as I proved, does not
change the fact you are playing on a negative machine. If you've been
lucky enough to gamble on the high side of the bell curve then you
should be thankful and shut up.

>
> Name only 10 of the "so-many" and show me their results.

You're always looking for what you know is either not on paper or
something that would require other people's permission. Why don't

you

pose the question on vpfree with your e-mail address for them to
respond to. There's several thousand members there, and I have 4700
who get my e-newsletter. Some are on vpfree for sure. Don't forget

to

ask who's followed it EXACTLY as I specify and has never waivered.

You are the one who made the assertion. With your histories of lies I
seriously doubt there is any truth in the statement. So, either back
it up or admit it's just another one of your lies.

>
> > You sure know the 'wiggle & squirm'! I was even going to give

you

a break on your coming to Scottsdale, because I can get $700k cash
>
> YOUR offer was $200K. After we conclude that transaction we can
> discuss the $700K, not before. So, monkey boy, do you have it or
are you going to run and hide one more time. As if it wasn't

obvious

> already ... PS. I will be traveling through Scottsdale next month
if you still want to uphold your original bet. I just thought LV
would be easier for a big time gambler like you claim to be.

No, YOUR offer was for $200k.

Do I need to quote you again. That was YOUR offer, monkey boy. OK,
here are the exact words. You said:

"Second, while I have $200k, you certainly don't."

That was your challege. To which I responded:

"Would you like to bet another $200K on that statement? I'll
personally stop in Scotsdale next month with my money ..."

That was my acceptance of your challenge. And you said:

"Be clear, professor. What's the bet? Bring the cash, and we have a
$200k bet that you don't have it."

I think it's pretty clear the bet is for 200K.

Mine was $700. Get the facts straight.

I did and you're already running for the hills.

> What's that I hear? Monkey boy squealing .. "but, but, but" ...

Did I call this one, or what?.

···

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