Euros hiding under our skirt again

[Dan_Cox]

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

> 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.

That's because you're so blind as not to see that the machines that
are there TODAT are there for TODAY only, nerd, and you're so stuck
on a theoretical long-term amount of time and play and perfect
execution that you'll never get it.

Secondly,

winpokers' analysis code provides what's called proof by example.

Gee, now THERE's something to hang our hats on......

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?

You keep trying dumb analogies to get out of the hole you've dug.
All you've done is exactly what I told you not to---more stupid
theory that has zero place in video poker. But you're just a nerdy
idiot who knows no common sense.

> 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.

You've demonstrated nothing, as usual. Your warped sense of theory
can't make it past your hard head. Never has.

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.

The joke's on you. I win a hundred times what you do. Your stupid
theory says that just can't be! Oh my, what's a geek to do??

> 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.

You and your 'average player' DS. You're so corny. Live life instead
of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you see why nerds
are always made fun of throughout every step of their useless lives??

> 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.

More nerd theory. Now we see the word 'briefly'. HAHAHA! I'll never
get behind because I'll never play more than my current gaming
bankroll of $72,000. And I'll never allow it to get to more than
$171.6k. Run those numbers thru your program-of-envy and squirm some
more.

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.

That's your dopiest statement yet. I KNOW I'm right because I've
seen it over and over again on negative AND positive machines. And
it makes no dofference anyway. The stat is true--regardless of the
wedgy it gives you.

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.

You and your theoretical curce. What a fool. Real life anf living
simply passed you by....unless, of course, you consider a vacation
playing video poker at various locations 'life'.

> 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.

Get your hand off your dick and listen up. EVERY WINNING hand is a
result of good luck. If you didn't have such a thick skull you'd see
reality.

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.

OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a grown man
LAUGH OUT LOUD!!

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

No answers again? And again??

> 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.

What is this mysterious 'average player' you put all your eggs into?
Can't you explain something real?? That's where you're weak and
stupid-sounding. One more chance to redeem yourself.

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.

More crybabying. That's all nerds usually do. They can't produce
exact proof, so they waaa waaa waaaa!

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?.

When you bet with a professional in poker you either stay in during
the raise or you scamper like some poor weasel who's bluffing. Did
we all see this coming or what!?

[rgmustain]

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

That's because you're so blind as not to see that the machines that
are there TODAT are there for TODAY only, nerd, and you're so stuck
on a theoretical long-term amount of time and play and perfect
execution that you'll never get it.

One more idiot reply that has nothing to do with my response. Could
you be any more idiotic???

Secondly,
> winpokers' analysis code provides what's called proof by example.

Gee, now THERE's something to hang our hats on......

You wanted proof. You got proof. I can't help it if you don't like
what it implies. That is, your system is worthless.

> 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?

You keep trying dumb analogies to get out of the hole you've dug.

So, you really do think ALL the fortune 500 companies are wrong. You
dig yourself in an ever deepening hole.

All you've done is exactly what I told you not to---more stupid
theory that has zero place in video poker. But you're just a nerdy
idiot who knows no common sense.

Far more common sense than an individual who thinks ALL the fortune
500 companies are stupid. I think you should head back into the
jungle, monkey boy.

>
> > 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.

You've demonstrated nothing, as usual. Your warped sense of theory
can't make it past your hard head. Never has.

Denying the facts again, monkey boy? You get more idiotic with every
response. Let's see you provide one single FACT to support your
position.

>
> 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.

The joke's on you. I win a hundred times what you do. Your stupid
theory says that just can't be! Oh my, what's a geek to do??

I don't care what you do with your stupid system. Just keep it to
yourself and quit trying to promote it. I've proven it doesn't work
for the average gambler, give it up.

>
> > 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.

You and your 'average player' DS. You're so corny. Live life

instead

of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you see why nerds
are always made fun of throughout every step of their useless

lives??

Another idiotic reply by the monkey boy. So little time, so many
stupid posts ...

>
> > 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.

More nerd theory. Now we see the word 'briefly'. HAHAHA! I'll never
get behind because I'll never play more than my current gaming
bankroll of $72,000. And I'll never allow it to get to more than
$171.6k. Run those numbers thru your program-of-envy and squirm

some

more.

More personal results. Get over it. Nobody cares ... If you can't
provide any VALID information for other gamblers to use ... buzz off.

>
> 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.

That's your dopiest statement yet. I KNOW I'm right because I've
seen it over and over again on negative AND positive machines. And
it makes no dofference anyway. The stat is true--regardless of the
wedgy it gives you.

Show some supporting evidence or get over it. Just because you think
it's true means squat.

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.

You and your theoretical curce. What a fool. Real life anf living
simply passed you by....unless, of course, you consider a vacation
playing video poker at various locations 'life'.

Another idiotic response. You have so many ... Still no facts to
support ANYTHING you say. You are such a fraud.

>
> > 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.

Get your hand off your dick and listen up. EVERY WINNING hand is a
result of good luck. If you didn't have such a thick skull you'd

see

reality.

So what. I've always stated any single hand or single session for
that matter is pretty much controlled by luck. Doesn't have anything
to do with what LONG TERM approach the average gambler should take.
Your problem is you aren't smart enough to understand that even
though a single hand is controlled by luck, the results of 10000s of
hands comes closer and closer to statisical probabilities. So, if an
individual plans on playing 10000s of hands in their lifetime, they
are better off using advantage play.

>
> 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.

OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a grown man
LAUGH OUT LOUD!!

You're also laughing at those fortune 500 companies that use that
same "stupid bell curve". Really does make you look like a moron,
doesn't it?

>
> > 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.

What is this mysterious 'average player' you put all your eggs

into?

If you're promoting your strategy and 100 people try it. The average
player will be the 50th in overall results. I know that's pretty
complex for your intellect.

Can't you explain something real?? That's where you're weak and
stupid-sounding. One more chance to redeem yourself.

Looks pretty real right now, doesn't it.

> 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.

More crybabying. That's all nerds usually do. They can't produce
exact proof, so they waaa waaa waaaa!

One more idiotic reply.

>
> 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 quoted them). Now, you've just stated that you had lied.
Need I say more.

>
> 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?.

When you bet with a professional in poker you either stay in during
the raise or you scamper like some poor weasel who's bluffing. Did
we all see this coming or what!?

Once you CALL someone in poker, monkey boy, you can't raise. In this
case you CALLed. Don't you even know how to play simple poker???

···

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

[pesach_kremen]

I agree that if you continually play 99% you will end up losing as there is no mathematical way to turn a negative expectation game in to a positive expectation game. But as 99% is very close to 100%, it may take a very long time for the results to average out to a 99% return, thus close to half of the players could be ahead at any given time. With the example given of $1000 woth of play, one extra full house with that $1000 could mean $1000 being returned as opposed to $990 being returned. But there might be other values to the individual who plays 99% games to make up for the 1%. He might get free room nights, comps, or slot club cash. If he puts through #$800 hour and gets a drink very 15" that would cost a few dollars (hopefully not too much alcohol so that his play remains at 99%) he might consider himself getting free entertainment. I am not part of this back and forth argument that I see on this matter, but may be this view of palying a 99% game might be a valid one.

···

From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Reply-To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Euro trash.
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0000

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
<royalflush2222@h...> wrote:

I agree that if you continually play 99% you will end up losing as

there is

no mathematical way to turn a negative expectation game in to a

positive

expectation game. But as 99% is very close to 100%, it may take a

very long

time for the results to average out to a 99% return, thus close to

half of

the players could be ahead at any given time. With the example

given of

$1000 woth of play, one extra full house with that $1000 could mean

$1000

being returned as opposed to $990 being returned.

And one less full house would be a $20 loss. You've clearly missed
the salient points of this discussion.

But there might be other
values to the individual who plays 99% games to make up for the

1%. He

might get free room nights, comps, or slot club cash.

Then it may NOT be an overall negative play. I have no problem with
this.

If he puts through
#$800 hour and gets a drink very 15" that would cost a few dollars
(hopefully not too much alcohol so that his play remains at 99%) he

might

consider himself getting free entertainment. I am not part of this

back and

forth argument that I see on this matter, but may be this view of

palying a

99% game might be a valid one.

Note that this discussion is not about a single session, but whether
a system based on negative games is worthwhile. Anyone who even
thinks about learning a SYSTEM intends to play quite a bit. For this
type of player using negative machines will almost always lead to
losses.

In addition, for players that don't care about any system, the
overall results of thousands of players using negative machines will
be worse than if they used positive machines. Any discussion that
would lead lots of players to assume playing negative machines is OK
will result in more net losses for more of these players.

[Dan_Cox]

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

> Secondly, winpokers' analysis code provides what's called proof

by example.

>
> Gee, now THERE's something to hang our hats on......

You wanted proof. You got proof. I can't help it if you don't like
what it implies. That is, your system is worthless.

What good is proof unless it has anything at all to do with the
topic at hand?? Nerd-proof isn't proof. It's conjecture based on
misguided youth, middle-age doldrums, and declining years.

> You keep trying dumb analogies to get out of the hole you've dug.

So, you really do think ALL the fortune 500 companies are wrong.

You dig yourself in an ever deepening hole.

Change the issue again? Are you lost?

> You've demonstrated nothing, as usual. Your warped sense of

theory can't make it past your hard head. Never has.

Denying the facts again, monkey boy? You get more idiotic with

every response. Let's see you provide one single FACT to support
your position.

Facts get muddled inside your hard head. You've let every one of
them go there.

> The joke's on you. I win a hundred times what you do. Your

stupid theory says that just can't be! Oh my, what's a geek to do??

I don't care what you do with your stupid system. Just keep it to
yourself and quit trying to promote it. I've proven it doesn't

work for the average gambler, give it up.

Your 'average gambler' excape again? Foolish....or just plain stupid?

> > 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.

>
> You and your 'average player' DS. You're so corny. Live life
instead of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you see

why nerds are always made fun of throughout every step of their
useless lives??

Another idiotic reply by the monkey boy. So little time, so many
stupid posts ...

Just as expected--you've got nothing to say. But then again, what
COULD you say to logic in the face of a fool's belief?

> More nerd theory. Now we see the word 'briefly'. HAHAHA! I'll

never

> get behind because I'll never play more than my current gaming
> bankroll of $72,000. And I'll never allow it to get to more than
> $171.6k. Run those numbers thru your program-of-envy and squirm
some more.

More personal results. Get over it. Nobody cares ... If you can't
provide any VALID information for other gamblers to use ... buzz

off.

So who cares about 'other gamblers'? Hypocritically you say 'nobody
cares' about mine. But you certainly do--it eats away at you. Plain
as day.

> 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.

>
> You and your theoretical curce. What a fool. Real life anf

living simply passed you by....unless, of course, you consider a
vacation playing video poker at various locations 'life'.

Another idiotic response. You have so many ... Still no facts to
support ANYTHING you say. You are such a fraud.

I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify your
inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer. I wonder
why.... Get your wife on here, and if she's not yet as far gone as
you are with the pathalogical gambling, maybe she'll let us know
what it's doing to her.

> Get your hand off your dick and listen up. EVERY WINNING hand is

a result of good luck. If you didn't have such a thick skull you'd

see reality.

So what. I've always stated any single hand or single session for
that matter is pretty much controlled by luck. Doesn't have

anything to do with what LONG TERM approach the average gambler
should take. Your problem is you aren't smart enough to understand
that even though a single hand is controlled by luck, the results of
10000s of hands comes closer and closer to statisical probabilities.
So, if an individual plans on playing 10000s of hands in their
lifetime, they are better off using advantage play.

Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and unwavering
blindness to reality in video poker play. You agree each winning
hand is because of good luck, but all of a sudden, if you play
50,000 hands and win, it's because of some sort of undefineable
skill and all those lucky hands are magically converted over to
skill-based theory. Typical geek without a clue.

> OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a grown

man LAUGH OUT LOUD!!

You're also laughing at those fortune 500 companies that use that
same "stupid bell curve". Really does make you look like a moron,
doesn't it?

Switch & bait doesn't work here when you're talking to the foremost
expert in the world on vp. Get back to the topic.

> What is this mysterious 'average player' you put all your eggs
into?

If you're promoting your strategy and 100 people try it. The

average player will be the 50th in overall results. I know that's
pretty complex for your intellect.

More geek theory with no basis other than your lost mind.The truth
is you have no idea what will occur, and making up probabilities has
no meaning to a player trying to win money TODAY.

> Can't you explain something real?? That's where you're weak and
> stupid-sounding. One more chance to redeem yourself.

Looks pretty real right now, doesn't it.

Empty response. Say something real.

> >
> > I think it's pretty clear the bet is for 200K.
> >
> > > Mine was $700. Get the facts straight.

I did (and quoted them). Now, you've just stated that you had

lied. Need I say more.

> >
> > 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?.
>
> When you bet with a professional in poker you either stay in

during the raise or you scamper like some poor weasel who's
bluffing. Did we all see this coming or what!?

Once you CALL someone in poker, monkey boy, you can't raise. In

this case you CALLed. Don't you even know how to play simple
poker???

A raise is a raise, and we weren't playing poker as you can see. I
gave you an out and you keep trying to weasel your way around doing
the right thing. Either you have it or you don't. $200k is a
meaningless figure for a professional gambler who doesn't plan on
working ever again. That figure proves nothing. $700k does. Now stop
covering your head with your blankey and act like a man!

[Dan_Cox]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
<royalflush2222@h...> wrote:

I agree that if you continually play 99% you will end up losing as

there is no mathematical way to turn a negative expectation game in
to a positive expectation game.

That's the kind of negative thinking that makes people lose before
they start. I play almost all negative games--and I've been doing so
since 1997--yet I'm much farther ahead than anyone I know
about....and I'm disregarding MY comps and all that other junk. 99%
does not mean you must lose. There are ways to win...consistently.

  But as 99% is very close to 100%, it may take a very long

time for the results to average out to a 99% return, thus close to

half of

the players could be ahead at any given time. With the example

given of

$1000 woth of play, one extra full house with that $1000 could

mean $1000

being returned as opposed to $990 being returned. But there might

be other

values to the individual who plays 99% games to <a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=make%20up"
onmouseover="window.status='make up'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">make up</a> for the 1%.
He

might get free room nights, comps, or slot club cash. If he puts

through

#$800 hour and gets a drink very 15" that would cost a few dollars
(hopefully not too much alcohol so that his play remains at 99%)

he might

consider himself getting free entertainment. I am not part of

this back and

forth argument that I see on this matter, but may be this view of

palying a

99% game might be a valid one.

>From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
>Reply-To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
>To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Euro trash.
>Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:27:45 -0000
>
>
> >
> > --- 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" ...

···

>--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
>
>Did I call this one, or what?.
>
>
>

[Dan_Cox]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
<royalflush2222@h...> wrote:

With the example given of $1000 woth of play, one extra full house

with that $1000 could mean $1000 being returned as opposed to $990
being returned.

And one less full house would be a $20 loss. You've clearly missed
the salient points of this discussion.

And yet again Dick can't separate short-term or one-hand play from
idiotic long-term probability theroy when discussing examples. Such a
sour life one should be so cursed living!

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> > Secondly, winpokers' analysis code provides what's called

proof

by example.
> >
> > Gee, now THERE's something to hang our hats on......
>
> You wanted proof. You got proof. I can't help it if you don't

like

> what it implies. That is, your system is worthless.

What good is proof unless it has anything at all to do with the
topic at hand??

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. It's
unfortunate your mind can't comprehend even the most SIMPLE concepts.

Nerd-proof isn't proof. It's conjecture based on
misguided youth, middle-age doldrums, and declining years.
>
> > You keep trying dumb analogies to get out of the hole you've

dug.

>
> So, you really do think ALL the fortune 500 companies are wrong.
You dig yourself in an ever deepening hole.

Change the issue again? Are you lost?

I'm doing just fine. You're the one who thinks statistics doesn't
work when applied to VP.

>
> > You've demonstrated nothing, as usual. Your warped sense of
theory can't make it past your hard head. Never has.
>
> Denying the facts again, monkey boy? You get more idiotic with
every response. Let's see you provide one single FACT to support
your position.

Facts get muddled inside your hard head. You've let every one of
them go there.

Just as I expected. Not one single fact. More evidence that you have
completely lost perspective in this discussion and have reverted to
your normal tactics of obfuscation. Won't work.

>
> > The joke's on you. I win a hundred times what you do. Your
stupid theory says that just can't be! Oh my, what's a geek to do??
>
> I don't care what you do with your stupid system. Just keep it to
> yourself and quit trying to promote it. I've proven it doesn't
work for the average gambler, give it up.

Your 'average gambler' excape again? Foolish....or just plain

stupid?

Just plain fact. Clearly, you're completely lost. Maybe you should go
back and reread the last few posts to catch up. But then, that
wouldn't really help you because you know I've PROVEN your system is
a fraud and you don't like that. You're quite the fool.

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > You and your 'average player' DS. You're so corny. Live life
> instead of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you see
why nerds are always made fun of throughout every step of their
useless lives??
>
> Another idiotic reply by the monkey boy. So little time, so many
> stupid posts ...

Just as expected--you've got nothing to say. But then again, what
COULD you say to logic in the face of a fool's belief?

I've ALREADY said it. I've proven your system is worthless. Now
you're attempting to throw out idiotic posts to cover your butt.
Won't work, monkey boy, you are so completely at a loss to write
anything intelligent you just babble on.

>
> > More nerd theory. Now we see the word 'briefly'. HAHAHA! I'll
never
> > get behind because I'll never play more than my current gaming
> > bankroll of $72,000. And I'll never allow it to get to more

than

> > $171.6k. Run those numbers thru your program-of-envy and squirm
> some more.
>
> More personal results. Get over it. Nobody cares ... If you can't
> provide any VALID information for other gamblers to use ... buzz
off.

So who cares about 'other gamblers'?

Let's see ... maybe someone who maintains a website advertising their
system, or ... maybe someone who writes a book, or ... maybe someone
who can help but jump into almost any internet discussion to claim
that proven advantage play techniques don't work. Look in the mirror,
monkey boy, you care SO MUCH it's eating you up that I've proven your
system is worthless.

>
> > 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.
> >
> > You and your theoretical curce. What a fool. Real life anf
living simply passed you by....unless, of course, you consider a
vacation playing video poker at various locations 'life'.
>
> Another idiotic response. You have so many ... Still no facts to
> support ANYTHING you say. You are such a fraud.

I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify your
inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.

In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on vacation.
Are you a complete moron or is your reading comprehension really this
bad???

I wonder
why.... Get your wife on here, and if she's not yet as far gone as
you are with the pathalogical gambling, maybe she'll let us know
what it's doing to her.

Keep trying, monkey boy. I gamble and ENJOY it. So does my wife. Just
because you are an addicted loser (and you'd love to think everyone
else is also addicted), just doesn't make it so. Get over it.

>
> > Get your hand off your dick and listen up. EVERY WINNING hand

is

a result of good luck. If you didn't have such a thick skull you'd
> see reality.
>
> So what. I've always stated any single hand or single session for
> that matter is pretty much controlled by luck. Doesn't have
anything to do with what LONG TERM approach the average gambler
should take. Your problem is you aren't smart enough to understand
that even though a single hand is controlled by luck, the results

of

10000s of hands comes closer and closer to statisical

probabilities.

So, if an individual plans on playing 10000s of hands in their
lifetime, they are better off using advantage play.

Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and unwavering
blindness to reality in video poker play.

Nope, that was a factual statement. You deny it ONLY so you can
perpetuate your fraudulent system. You are truly worthless scum.

You agree each winning
hand is because of good luck, but all of a sudden, if you play
50,000 hands and win, it's because of some sort of undefineable
skill and all those lucky hands are magically converted over to
skill-based theory. Typical geek without a clue.

Just as I stated … You ARE too STUPID to understand that what I
said (and you ALMOST repeated) is true. There's no "all of a sudden",
it happens gradually with each and every hand. Ever heard of
convergence in your EE career? I realize this is just another attempt
on your part to prey on the mathematically challenged. Problem with
your attempt is that this is no different than coin flips. If you bet
on heads for a single flip then LUCK would clearly be the deciding
factor, however, over 1000 flips everyone already knows that the
number of heads is going to be real close to 500. It's the same
statistical basis used for VP. Now, are you going to tell me that
with the monkey boy coin flip progressive system you can get heads
far more often than 50%??? PS. That's EXACTLY what your doing with
your VP system. You're claiming you can beat the odds of a negative
machine. Doesn't work with coin flips, won't won't with VP either.

>
> > OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a grown
man LAUGH OUT LOUD!!
>
> You're also laughing at those fortune 500 companies that use that
> same "stupid bell curve". Really does make you look like a moron,
> doesn't it?

Switch & bait doesn't work here when you're talking to the foremost
expert in the world on vp. Get back to the topic.

There goes monkey boy again ... beating his chest. Would you like me
throw you another banana??? Too bad I've already proven you're a
fraud. Now, please tell me again how YOU are right and ALL the
fortune 500 companies are wrong??? Your pathetic attempts to sound
important are a joke.

>
> > What is this mysterious 'average player' you put all your eggs
> into?
>
> If you're promoting your strategy and 100 people try it. The
average player will be the 50th in overall results. I know that's
pretty complex for your intellect.

More geek theory with no basis other than your lost mind.The truth
is you have no idea what will occur, and making up probabilities

has

no meaning to a player trying to win money TODAY.

What does your response have to do with the definition of "average
player". Nothing! Pretty much shows how badly you are scrambling. I
suspected my definition of average was too complex for your sinmple
mind. Let's see if I can make it simpler. If you have 3 players'
results, the one in the middle is the average one. Please try to
catch up.

>
> > Can't you explain something real?? That's where you're weak and
> > stupid-sounding. One more chance to redeem yourself.
>
> Looks pretty real right now, doesn't it.

Empty response. Say something real.

I did. I defined "average player". You just keep rambling with no
purpose.

> >
> > When you bet with a professional in poker you either stay in
during the raise or you scamper like some poor weasel who's
bluffing. Did we all see this coming or what!?
>
> Once you CALL someone in poker, monkey boy, you can't raise. In
this case you CALLed. Don't you even know how to play simple
poker???

A raise is a raise, and we weren't playing poker as you can see. I
gave you an out and you keep trying to weasel your way around doing
the right thing. Either you have it or you don't. $200k is a
meaningless figure for a professional gambler who doesn't plan on
working ever again. That figure proves nothing. $700k does. Now

stop

covering your head with your blankey and act like a man!

I think everyone can see who has the "blankey". This is just more
scambling by the monkey boy. It's more than obvious you have now
reneged on our bet (which I predicted many posts ago). Why would I
accept your 700K bet? You would renege on it also because you are,
how can put this, a liar and a fraud.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
> <royalflush2222@h...> wrote:

>With the example given of $1000 woth of play, one extra full house
with that $1000 could mean $1000 being returned as opposed to $990
being returned.
>
> And one less full house would be a $20 loss. You've clearly

missed

> the salient points of this discussion.
>
And yet again Dick can't separate short-term or one-hand play from
idiotic long-term probability theroy when discussing examples.

I didn't say one thing in this response about long-term probability
theory. I simply pointed out that the example had an obvious flaw.

You, on the other hand, are so afraid of discussing fact-based
statistical analysis (because it proves you are a fraud) that you
think ALL my posts relate to long-term probability.

···

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

[pesach_kremen]

I think the answer here is very simple. But the math cannot be ignored either. If you play a 99% game, not counting cashback, comps, offers, etc, and you play enough you will come out behind. I congratulate you on your short term luck and if you are ahead several thousand you may not play enough hands to eventually end up in the loss column, as a 1% loss rate with high variance may take a long while to assert itself. I would find ways to get that 99% to 100% by better play, better machine selection, better cashback etc., that way the money you won beating th eodds can stay with you longer. Good luck!

···

From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Reply-To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Euro trash.
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:26:54 -0000

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
> > <royalflush2222@h...> wrote:
>
> >With the example given of $1000 woth of play, one extra full house
> with that $1000 could mean $1000 being returned as opposed to $990
> being returned.
> >
> > And one less full house would be a $20 loss. You've clearly
missed
> > the salient points of this discussion.
> >
> And yet again Dick can't separate short-term or one-hand play from
> idiotic long-term probability theroy when discussing examples.

I didn't say one thing in this response about long-term probability
theory. I simply pointed out that the example had an obvious flaw.

You, on the other hand, are so afraid of discussing fact-based
statistical analysis (because it proves you are a fraud) that you
think ALL my posts relate to long-term probability.

[Dan_Cox]

> What good is proof unless it has anything at all to do with the
> topic at hand??

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. It's
unfortunate your mind can't comprehend even the most SIMPLE

concepts.

You have a knack for talking yourself into believing even the most
unrelated issues can be grouped into your own little special comfort
zone for a personal feel-good position. Why don't you do some push-
ups. You may find it will help you act with responsibility for
reality now and then.

> Nerd-proof isn't proof. It's conjecture based on
> misguided youth, middle-age doldrums, and declining years.
> >
> > > You keep trying dumb analogies to get out of the hole you've
dug.

And you show you're lost for responses when you say that stuff.

> >
> > So, you really do think ALL the fortune 500 companies are

wrong.

> You dig yourself in an ever deepening hole.
>
> Change the issue again? Are you lost?

I'm doing just fine. You're the one who thinks statistics doesn't
work when applied to VP.

Statictics work fine when applied to vp.....ONLY AFTER the hand has
been played. It's all nerd-conjecture based on unattainable
projections beforehand, and you know that.

> Facts get muddled inside your hard head. You've let every one of
> them go there.

Just as I expected. Not one single fact. More evidence that you

have completely lost perspective in this discussion and have reverted
to your normal tactics of obfuscation. Won't work.

So then where's those elusive facts you babble on about, professor???

> LOSE money playing negative machines. Period. The fact that there
> are a few isolated winners is due to that ole' bell curve.
> > >
> > > You and your 'average player' BS. You're so corny. Live life
> > instead of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you

see why nerds are always made fun of throughout every step of their

> useless lives??
> >
> > Another idiotic reply by the monkey boy. So little time, so

many stupid posts ...

>
> Just as expected--you've got nothing to say. But then again, what
> COULD you say to logic in the face of a fool's belief?

I've ALREADY said it. I've proven your system is worthless. Now
you're attempting to throw out idiotic posts to cover your butt.
Won't work, monkey boy, you are so completely at a loss to write
anything intelligent you just babble on.

You've said only that which makes yur geek side feel good when you
can't provide proof of anything. That's why you look so
unintelligent. All you can do is crybaby and rant "No I Didn't, No I
Didn't" when faced with reality, and then toss out probability
theories that mean nothing to anyone but you. Side-stepping issues is
something you've learned, and it's looking more and more like it has
something to do with your losses built up in all that habitual video
poker play. The more nonsense you say the more you drift away.........

> So who cares about 'other gamblers'?

Let's see ... maybe someone who maintains a website advertising

their system, or ... maybe someone who writes a book, or ... maybe
someone who can help but jump into almost any internet discussion to
claim that proven advantage play techniques don't work. Look in the
mirror, monkey boy, you care SO MUCH it's eating you up that I've
proven your system is worthless.

My care goes only as far as helping players out of the misleading,
marketed and therefore fraudulent theory of long-term strategy. That
includes you if you're not completely consumed by the pathological
side of gambling--which you probably are based on your intermittent
prowess-bragging and amount of vp trips you take that can't be
helped. And on the Internet....there's a good one. I'm the famous one
here and you....you're just a wannabee groupie who can't get enough
of discussing issues with me. You keep on saying 'buzz off' and 'get
lost' but you continue to make a fool of yourself. Guess who the
chump is on freevpfree!

> > > You and your theoretical curve. What a fool. Real life anf
> living simply passed you by....unless, of course, you consider a
> vacation playing video poker at various locations 'life'.
> >
> > Another idiotic response. You have so many ... Still no facts

to support ANYTHING you say. You are such a fraud.

I'll leave it in there once more to irk you again! Think vacations.
Think 'enjoyment doing normal things....' Think "What went wrong??"

>
> I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify your
> inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.

In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on vacation.

Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.

Keep trying, monkey boy. I gamble and ENJOY it. So does my wife.

Just because you are an addicted loser (and you'd love to think
everyone else is also addicted), just doesn't make it so. Get over it.

HAHA! Like you'd EVER say what it's really like for you or her.

> > So what. I've always stated any single hand or single session

for

> > that matter is pretty much controlled by luck. Doesn't have
> anything to do with what LONG TERM approach the average gambler
> should take. Your problem is you aren't smart enough to

understand

> that even though a single hand is controlled by luck, the results
of
> 10000s of hands comes closer and closer to statisical
probabilities.
> So, if an individual plans on playing 10000s of hands in their
> lifetime, they are better off using advantage play.
>
> Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and unwavering
> blindness to reality in video poker play.

Nope, that was a factual statement. You deny it ONLY so you can
perpetuate your fraudulent system. You are truly worthless scum.

And you believe your own words because they offer justification for
your continued play--as awful and time-consuming as it is.

> You agree each winning
> hand is because of good luck, but all of a sudden, if you play
> 50,000 hands and win, it's because of some sort of undefineable
> skill and all those lucky hands are magically converted over to
> skill-based theory. Typical geek without a clue.

Just as I stated ... You ARE too STUPID to understand that what I
said (and you ALMOST repeated) is true. There's no "all of a

sudden", it happens gradually with each and every hand.

Yeah right. It s-l-o-w-l-y changes over instead of all-of-a-sudden.
Are you nuts or something? Now because you can't get out of it you
make believe once again. As I said, good thing you never worked for
me.

Ever heard of

convergence in your EE career? I realize this is just another

attempt

on your part to prey on the mathematically challenged. Problem with
your attempt is that this is no different than coin flips. If you

bet

on heads for a single flip then LUCK would clearly be the deciding
factor, however, over 1000 flips everyone already knows that the
number of heads is going to be real close to 500. It's the same
statistical basis used for VP. Now, are you going to tell me that
with the monkey boy coin flip progressive system you can get heads
far more often than 50%??? PS. That's EXACTLY what your doing

with your VP system. You're claiming you can beat the odds of a
negative machine. Doesn't work with coin flips, won't won't with VP
either.

Convergence has zero to do with playing a game on a computer,
professor. Then you toss in coinn flips again. Everything but what
video poker does! Typical nerd. Get stumped--change the issue around.

> >
> > > OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a grown
> man LAUGH OUT LOUD!!
> >
> > You're also laughing at those fortune 500 companies that use

that

> > same "stupid bell curve". Really does make you look like a

moron,

> > doesn't it?
> ..
> Switch & bait doesn't work here when you're talking to the

foremost expert in the world on vp. Get back to the topic.

There goes monkey boy again ... beating his chest. Would you like

me

throw you another banana??? Too bad I've already proven you're a
fraud. Now, please tell me again how YOU are right and ALL the
fortune 500 companies are wrong??? Your pathetic attempts to sound
important are a joke.

I'm right and companies have nothing to do with it. Tosing in another
topic to cover your butt again??

> > If you're promoting your strategy and 100 people try it. The
> average player will be the 50th in overall results. I know that's
> pretty complex for your intellect.

What you don't know if that's true or not. Statistics are only valid
AFTER an event, professor. Or didn't your career in computer-
geekiness teach you that?

>
> More geek theory with no basis other than your lost mind.The

truth is you have no idea what will occur, and making up
probabilities has no meaning to a player trying to win money TODAY.

What does your response have to do with the definition of "average
player". Nothing! Pretty much shows how badly you are scrambling. I
suspected my definition of average was too complex for your sinmple
mind. Let's see if I can make it simpler. If you have 3 players'
results, the one in the middle is the average one. Please try to
catch up.

Who cares about that nonsense? You're getting more and more off the
point. Stick with the topic--apparently something those in their
declining years have trouble doing.

> > Once you CALL someone in poker, monkey boy, you can't raise. In
> this case you CALLed. Don't you even know how to play simple
> poker???
>
> A raise is a raise, and we weren't playing poker as you can see.

I

> gave you an out and you keep trying to weasel your way around

doing

> the right thing. Either you have it or you don't. $200k is a
> meaningless figure for a professional gambler who doesn't plan on
> working ever again. That figure proves nothing. $700k does. Now
stop
> covering your head with your blankey and act like a man!

I think everyone can see who has the "blankey". This is just more
scambling by the monkey boy. It's more than obvious you have now
reneged on our bet (which I predicted many posts ago). Why would I
accept your 700K bet? You would renege on it also because you are,
how can put this, a liar and a fraud.

More squirmy words have never been written. Here's your final chance:
$700k cash, proof in Scottsdale or not. YES or NO? Simple as that.
And if you keep on with this junk about how "it has to be $200k
because I said it does' then you haven't realized you're the nobody
here dealing with a somebody, and chumps like you are required to do
as they're directed to. Again: YES or NO?

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

> > And one less full house would be a $20 loss. You've clearly
missed the salient points of this discussion.
> >
> And yet again Dick can't separate short-term or one-hand play

from idiotic long-term probability theroy when discussing examples.

I didn't say one thing in this response about long-term

probability theory. I simply pointed out that the example had an
obvious flaw.

What you 'said' and what you didn't 'say' is of no consequence. It's
what you meant.

You, on the other hand, are so afraid of discussing fact-based
statistical analysis (because it proves you are a fraud) that you
think ALL my posts relate to long-term probability.

And you, on this hand, are so afraid of trying to talk about real-
time reality that all you can constantly do is murmur conjecture
just as the geek gods would want yo just so you can side-step every
important issue laid out before you.

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > What good is proof unless it has anything at all to do with the
> > topic at hand??
>
> Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. It's
> unfortunate your mind can't comprehend even the most SIMPLE
concepts.

You have a knack for talking yourself into believing even the most
unrelated issues can be grouped into your own little special

comfort

zone for a personal feel-good position. Why don't you do some push-
ups. You may find it will help you act with responsibility for
reality now and then.

You can sure use a lot of words to say NOTHING. It's probably the
only talent you possess.

> > > So, you really do think ALL the fortune 500 companies are
wrong.
> > You dig yourself in an ever deepening hole.
> >
> > Change the issue again? Are you lost?
>
> I'm doing just fine. You're the one who thinks statistics doesn't
> work when applied to VP.

Statictics work fine when applied to vp.....ONLY AFTER the hand has
been played. It's all nerd-conjecture based on unattainable
projections beforehand, and you know that.

Hmmmm. So, the market analysis techniques used by these fortune 500
companies are right "ONLY AFTER" the fact??? Zounds, you better get
off a memo to them right away before they all go bankrupt. Same exact
principle as VP ... Your stupidity is astounding.

>
> > Facts get muddled inside your hard head. You've let every one

of

> > them go there.
>
> Just as I expected. Not one single fact. More evidence that you
have completely lost perspective in this discussion and have

reverted

to your normal tactics of obfuscation. Won't work.

So then where's those elusive facts you babble on about,

professor???

I provided the proof (or elusive facts as you want to call it).
You've provided nothing to refute the proof. QED.

>
> > LOSE money playing negative machines. Period. The fact that

there

> > are a few isolated winners is due to that ole' bell curve.
> > > >
> > > > You and your 'average player' BS. You're so corny. Live

life

> > > instead of reading about how it's supposed to be. Now do you
see why nerds are always made fun of throughout every step of their
> > useless lives??
> > >
> > > Another idiotic reply by the monkey boy. So little time, so
many stupid posts ...
> >
> > Just as expected--you've got nothing to say. But then again,

what

> > COULD you say to logic in the face of a fool's belief?

As soon as you provide ONE single iota of logic we can continue that
discussion. Would you like me to repost my proof AGAIN?

>
> > So who cares about 'other gamblers'?
>
> Let's see ... maybe someone who maintains a website advertising
their system, or ... maybe someone who writes a book, or ... maybe
someone who can help but jump into almost any internet discussion

to

claim that proven advantage play techniques don't work. Look in the
mirror, monkey boy, you care SO MUCH it's eating you up that I've
proven your system is worthless.

My care goes only as far as helping players out of the misleading,
marketed and therefore fraudulent theory of long-term strategy.

Helping. You've got to be kidding. What a joke. How can you possibly
say you're helping when advantage play has been proven successful
while I've proven your system is worthless.

Guess who the
chump is on freevpfree!

Rob, monkey boy, Singer ... alias the Princess of Cowards. And I
think I've got another moniker for the poster boy of LOSERS. BigL.
Whenever you see anyone giving the "L" sysmbol you can feel
comfortable that they are referring to you.

> >
> > I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify your
> > inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.
>
> In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on

vacation.

Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.

Nope. Think about it.

> Keep trying, monkey boy. I gamble and ENJOY it. So does my wife.
Just because you are an addicted loser (and you'd love to think
everyone else is also addicted), just doesn't make it so. Get over

it.

HAHA! Like you'd EVER say what it's really like for you or her.

I see that mirror is looking back at you. Not a pretty site is it?

>
> > > So what. I've always stated any single hand or single session
for
> > > that matter is pretty much controlled by luck. Doesn't have
> > anything to do with what LONG TERM approach the average gambler
> > should take. Your problem is you aren't smart enough to
understand
> > that even though a single hand is controlled by luck, the

results

> of
> > 10000s of hands comes closer and closer to statisical
> probabilities.
> > So, if an individual plans on playing 10000s of hands in their
> > lifetime, they are better off using advantage play.
> >
> > Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and

unwavering

> > blindness to reality in video poker play.
>
> Nope, that was a factual statement. You deny it ONLY so you can
> perpetuate your fraudulent system. You are truly worthless scum.

And you believe your own words because they offer justification for
your continued play--as awful and time-consuming as it is.

Has nothing to do with words, bigL. It's all in the math.

>
> > You agree each winning
> > hand is because of good luck, but all of a sudden, if you play
> > 50,000 hands and win, it's because of some sort of undefineable
> > skill and all those lucky hands are magically converted over to
> > skill-based theory. Typical geek without a clue.
>
> Just as I stated ... You ARE too STUPID to understand that what I
> said (and you ALMOST repeated) is true. There's no "all of a
sudden", it happens gradually with each and every hand.

Yeah right. It s-l-o-w-l-y changes over instead of all-of-a-sudden.
Are you nuts or something? Now because you can't get out of it you
make believe once again. As I said, good thing you never worked for
me.

Just the facts, bigL. If I had worked for you, you would have been
fired quickly. Maybe that's exactly what happened and now you HATE
everyone smarter than you... A real possibility.

Ever heard of
> convergence in your EE career? I realize this is just another
attempt
> on your part to prey on the mathematically challenged. Problem

with

> your attempt is that this is no different than coin flips. If you
bet
> on heads for a single flip then LUCK would clearly be the

deciding

> factor, however, over 1000 flips everyone already knows that the
> number of heads is going to be real close to 500. It's the same
> statistical basis used for VP. Now, are you going to tell me that
> with the monkey boy coin flip progressive system you can get

heads

> far more often than 50%??? PS. That's EXACTLY what your doing
with your VP system. You're claiming you can beat the odds of a
negative machine. Doesn't work with coin flips, won't won't with VP
either.

Convergence has zero to do with playing a game on a computer,

One more example of your never-ending stupidity. Convergence has
everything to with a statistical analysis which is the ONLY way to
understand VP.

professor. Then you toss in coinn flips again. Everything but what
video poker does! Typical nerd. Get stumped--change the issue

around.

The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to most
that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-flipping. Each
event is random and independent. Each event has a small number of
outcomes with a specific liklihood of occuring. Therefore, both games
can be analyzed by statisical techniques providing 100% proven
results. Kind of hard to maintain your scam once someone realizes
this connection.

>
> > >
> > > > OK. You and that stupid bell curve are enough to make a

grown

> > man LAUGH OUT LOUD!!
> > >
> > > You're also laughing at those fortune 500 companies that use
that
> > > same "stupid bell curve". Really does make you look like a
moron,
> > > doesn't it?
> > ..
> > Switch & bait doesn't work here when you're talking to the
foremost expert in the world on vp. Get back to the topic.
>
> There goes monkey boy again ... beating his chest. Would you like
me
> throw you another banana??? Too bad I've already proven you're a
> fraud. Now, please tell me again how YOU are right and ALL the
> fortune 500 companies are wrong??? Your pathetic attempts to

sound

> important are a joke.

I'm right and companies have nothing to do with it. Tosing in

another

topic to cover your butt again??

You'd love that to be true. Too bad it isn't. Statistical techniques
are the same for VP as they are for any other venture. You deny this
in order to perpetuate your scam. One more reason you are the bigL.

>
> > > If you're promoting your strategy and 100 people try it. The
> > average player will be the 50th in overall results. I know

that's

> > pretty complex for your intellect.

What you don't know if that's true or not. Statistics are only

valid

AFTER an event, professor. Or didn't your career in computer-
geekiness teach you that?
> >
> > More geek theory with no basis other than your lost mind.The
truth is you have no idea what will occur, and making up
probabilities has no meaning to a player trying to win money TODAY.
>
> What does your response have to do with the definition

of "average

> player". Nothing! Pretty much shows how badly you are scrambling.

I

> suspected my definition of average was too complex for your

sinmple

> mind. Let's see if I can make it simpler. If you have 3 players'
> results, the one in the middle is the average one. Please try to
> catch up.

Who cares about that nonsense? You're getting more and more off the
point. Stick with the topic--apparently something those in their
declining years have trouble doing.

YOU ask me to define the average player. I did, and now you call my
response off topic. Could the bigL be getting a little confused???

>
> > > Once you CALL someone in poker, monkey boy, you can't raise.

In

> > this case you CALLed. Don't you even know how to play simple
> > poker???
> >
> > A raise is a raise, and we weren't playing poker as you can

see.

I
> > gave you an out and you keep trying to weasel your way around
doing
> > the right thing. Either you have it or you don't. $200k is a
> > meaningless figure for a professional gambler who doesn't plan

on

> > working ever again. That figure proves nothing. $700k does. Now
> stop
> > covering your head with your blankey and act like a man!
>
> I think everyone can see who has the "blankey". This is just more
> scambling by the monkey boy. It's more than obvious you have now
> reneged on our bet (which I predicted many posts ago). Why would

I

> accept your 700K bet? You would renege on it also because you

are,

> how can put this, a liar and a fraud.

More squirmy words have never been written. Here's your final

chance:

$700k cash, proof in Scottsdale or not. YES or NO?

Like I said before, bigL, as soon as we complete the 200K bet we can
move on. Not before. YES or NO???

But, while I wait we can start working out the details of the 700K
bet. I will need you to put that money in an escrow account, I will
need a written and signed legal contract stating that your money is
mine if I show up with 700K in cash. I will need to have my attorney
review the contract. I'm not about to pull my money out of my
investments on the word of a proven liar. Are you up for it???

PS. If you were looking for an amount I couldn't handle you haven't
gotten there yet.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

> You have a knack for talking yourself into believing even the

most unrelated issues can be grouped into your own little special

comfort zone for a personal feel-good position. Why don't you do

some push-ups. You may find it will help you act with responsibility
for reality now and then.

You can sure use a lot of words to say NOTHING. It's probably the
only talent you possess.

I can see the words 'push-ups' rattled you a bit. Kinda feels
lonesome being fat and old-doesn't it-but at least you've got your
video poker compulsion down pat!

> Statictics work fine when applied to vp.....ONLY AFTER the hand

has been played. It's all nerd-conjecture based on unattainable

> projections beforehand, and you know that.

Hmmmm. So, the market analysis techniques used by these fortune

500 companies are right "ONLY AFTER" the fact??? Zounds, you better
get off a memo to them right away before they all go bankrupt. Same
exact principle as VP ... Your stupidity is astounding.

You're a clown, right? Back to these fortune 500 companies because
you can't intelligently talk vp? And here's another bright flash to
light up your dull day: Any analysis these companies you're so stuck
on do are the sole result of historical data--and not geek-
conjecture as you so commonly hang your hat with the hole in it on.

> So then where's those elusive facts you babble on about,
professor???

I provided the proof (or elusive facts as you want to call it).
You've provided nothing to refute the proof. QED.

Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID provide
facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.

> > > Just as expected--you've got nothing to say. But then again,
what COULD you say to logic in the face of a fool's belief?

As soon as you provide ONE single iota of logic we can continue

that discussion. Would you like me to repost my proof AGAIN?

Yeah, go ahead. You've got all the time in the world---at least
until you have the uncontrollable urge to go out to the casinos
again. But this time make sure it's about vp and not some other lame
analogy of yours.

> My care goes only as far as helping players out of the

misleading, marketed and therefore fraudulent theory of long-term
strategy.

Helping. You've got to be kidding. What a joke. How can you

possibly say you're helping when advantage play has been proven
successful while I've proven your system is worthless.

You've proven nothing either way, except the fact that you and the
missus are pathological gamblers while living out their boring
declining years. I help people get out of the doldrums your in. So
you'd never see it, but I don't reject the possibility of a private
e-mail coming my way from you (like most people do) asking for some
of that help out of the vp rut you're in.

> > > I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify

your inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.

> >
> > In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on
vacation.
>
> Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.

Nope. Think about it.

I have. That's why it's staying up there again. I know it eats away
at you knowing (and now seeing it in writing)that you cannot ever
again go on a normal vacation without using the pathetic excuse that
video poker is FUN, but that's why we have old age. It won't last
forever, so you do have hope.

> HAHA! Like you'd EVER say what it's really like for you or her.

I see that mirror is looking back at you. Not a pretty site is it?

That kind of response went out with Pee Wee Herman.
  

> > > Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and
unwavering blindness to reality in video poker play.
> >
> > Nope, that was a factual statement. You deny it ONLY so you

can perpetuate your fraudulent system. You are truly worthless scum.

>
> And you believe your own words because they offer justification

for your continued play--as awful and time-consuming as it is.

Has nothing to do with words, bigL. It's all in the math.

It's really all in your head, and since it keeps seaping out of that
hole up there, you have the need to unknowingly repeat yourself.

> Yeah right. It s-l-o-w-l-y changes over instead of all-of-a-

sudden. Are you nuts or something? Now because you can't get out of
it you make believe once again. As I said, good thing you never
worked for me.

Just the facts, bigL. If I had worked for you, you would have been
fired quickly. Maybe that's exactly what happened and now you HATE
everyone smarter than you... A real possibility.

More Pee Wee Herman. Name one person alive who was a success at work
that now plays uncontrollable video poker--and has infected his
innocent wife along the way.

> Convergence has zero to do with playing a game on a computer,

One more example of your never-ending stupidity. Convergence has
everything to with a statistical analysis which is the ONLY way to
understand VP.

There you go again. Video poker is reality, and you treat it
like 'analyses' and theory. Get rea, and start to live whatever life
you have left. Escape that world of make-believe, put down that
stupid slide rule and you'll see what you've been missing.

> professor. Then you toss in coinn flips again. Everything but

what video poker does! Typical nerd. Get stumped--change the issue

around.

The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to most
that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-flipping.

Help! Help me! Please!!! I'm been rolling around on the floor
laughing SO loud that my stomach is hurting!! HAHAHAHAHA! Help me!!
VP is a more complex form of coin-flipping?? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've GOT
to use that quote in my next article!! You are soooo strange.....

Each

event is random and independent. Each event has a small number of
outcomes with a specific liklihood of occuring. Therefore, both

games can be analyzed by statisical techniques providing 100% proven

results. Kind of hard to maintain your scam once someone realizes
this connection.

You are also soooo hilarious when you try. Whenever you're wordy you
tend to ramble aimlessly because you're a little nervous.
Understandable though, talking to the master of the game.

  
> I'm right and companies have nothing to do with it. Tosing in
another topic to cover your butt again??

You'd love that to be true. Too bad it isn't. Statistical

techniques are the same for VP as they are for any other venture.
You deny this in order to perpetuate your scam. One more reason you
are the bigL.

More make-believe, feel-good nonsense again? Have you learned
nothing? You've been confused for a long, long time.

> > What does your response have to do with the definition
of "average player". Nothing! Pretty much shows how badly you are

scrambling.

Leave it to a nerd to bring up the term 'average player' when trying
to be nebulous. Stick with reality. You won't look so dumb or scared.

Why would I accept your 700K bet? You would renege on it also
because you are, how can put this, a liar and a fraud.

>
> More squirmy words have never been written. Here's your final
chance: $700k cash, proof in Scottsdale or not. YES or NO?

Like I said before, bigL, as soon as we complete the 200K bet we

can move on. Not before. YES or NO???

More Pee Wee Herman again? Let's see....I'm trying to put together a
$700,000 bet, and you're trying to weasel it into a $200k wimpy bet.
Hmmmmm...If you had it and weren't lying, why would you reject such
a bet?? Surely, $200k is mere peanuts to a success such as yourself!

But, while I wait we can start working out the details of the 700K
bet. I will need you to put that money in an escrow account, I

will need a written and signed legal contract stating that your
money is mine if I show up with 700K in cash. I will need to have my
attorney review the contract. I'm not about to pull my money out of
my investments on the word of a proven liar. Are you up for it???

NOW we're getting somewhere. But everyting is I, I, I. I don't need
a lawyer to draw up a simple notarized contract. That's the
difference between an MBA and a simple engineer. And forget about
that stupid $200k bet. Be here on Dec. 4th, I'll have the contract,
we'll go together to get the it notarized, you can then show me the
money, and one of us will be $700k wealthier. Bring your wife along
if you like. We have several Indian casinos that I'm sure you can
make her feel at home in once she plays her very first credit.

PS. If you were looking for an amount I couldn't handle you

haven't gotten there yet.

Spoken like a true losing player who wants it to be like that.

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> > You have a knack for talking yourself into believing even the
most unrelated issues can be grouped into your own little special
> comfort zone for a personal feel-good position. Why don't you do
some push-ups. You may find it will help you act with

responsibility

for reality now and then.
>
> You can sure use a lot of words to say NOTHING. It's probably the
> only talent you possess.

I can see the words 'push-ups' rattled you a bit. Kinda feels
lonesome being fat and old-doesn't it-but at least you've got your
video poker compulsion down pat!

To be honest, I don't do push-ups. I use a weight bench and do
incline presses to strenghten my arms. Another wrench in the monkey
boy theory of life.

>
> > Statictics work fine when applied to vp.....ONLY AFTER the hand
has been played. It's all nerd-conjecture based on unattainable
> > projections beforehand, and you know that.
>
> Hmmmm. So, the market analysis techniques used by these fortune
500 companies are right "ONLY AFTER" the fact??? Zounds, you better
get off a memo to them right away before they all go bankrupt. Same
exact principle as VP ... Your stupidity is astounding.

You're a clown, right? Back to these fortune 500 companies because
you can't intelligently talk vp?

I've already proven your system is a fraud. You claim the techniques
I use are not valid. That's where the forture 500 companies come in.
They use the same techniques for the same reasons. I can't help it if
it makes you look foolish.

And here's another bright flash to
light up your dull day: Any analysis these companies you're so

stuck

on do are the sole result of historical data--and not geek-
conjecture as you so commonly hang your hat with the hole in it on.

Not the "sole result" moron, there's always other parameters as well.
The point is they are looking to forecast the future using
statistical techniques. The exact same as advantage VP. I will admit
that VP analysis is MUCH simpler than market forcasting.
Unfortunately for you, monkey boy, it doesn't change FACT that the
techniques apply 100%.

>
> > So then where's those elusive facts you babble on about,
> professor???
>
> I provided the proof (or elusive facts as you want to call it).
> You've provided nothing to refute the proof. QED.

Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID provide
facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.

Actually, it was right here on this forum about a week ago.

>
> > My care goes only as far as helping players out of the
misleading, marketed and therefore fraudulent theory of long-term
strategy.
>
> Helping. You've got to be kidding. What a joke. How can you
possibly say you're helping when advantage play has been proven
successful while I've proven your system is worthless.

You've proven nothing either way,

Oh yes I have. Makes your fraud look pretty obvious, doesn't it?

>
> > > > I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify
your inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.
> > >
> > > In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on
> vacation.
> >
> > Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.
>
> Nope. Think about it.

I have. That's why it's staying up there again. I know it eats away
at you knowing (and now seeing it in writing)that you cannot ever
again go on a normal vacation without using the pathetic excuse

that

video poker is FUN, but that's why we have old age. It won't last
forever, so you do have hope.

I think you need to understand retirement a little better. You no
longer have to take vacations. Your life is pretty much a vacation.
It's more important to have something to occupy your time and keep
your mind sharp (VP?).

Now, that doesn't mean one doesn't take trips away from their homes.
I've been to Seattle, Naples, San Diego, Boston and many points in
between (I've averaged around 30K miles/year since my retirement).
I've gambled very little on these trips since there's very little
positive VP. Another wrench in monkey boy theory...

By the way, many of the VP advantage players I know are YOUNGer than
the monkey boy. Just another fact to show how lame your posts have
become.

> > > > Now THERE's a confirmation of your total stupidity and
> unwavering blindness to reality in video poker play.
> > >
> > > Nope, that was a factual statement. You deny it ONLY so you
can perpetuate your fraudulent system. You are truly worthless scum.
> >
> > And you believe your own words because they offer justification
for your continued play--as awful and time-consuming as it is.
>
> Has nothing to do with words, bigL. It's all in the math.

It's really all in your head, and since it keeps seaping out of

that

hole up there, you have the need to unknowingly repeat yourself.

It's in the math. I have no problem repeating facts.

>
> > Yeah right. It s-l-o-w-l-y changes over instead of all-of-a-
sudden. Are you nuts or something? Now because you can't get out of
it you make believe once again. As I said, good thing you never
worked for me.
>
> Just the facts, bigL. If I had worked for you, you would have

been

> fired quickly. Maybe that's exactly what happened and now you

HATE

> everyone smarter than you... A real possibility.

More Pee Wee Herman. Name one person alive who was a success at

work

that now plays uncontrollable video poker--and has infected his
innocent wife along the way.

I see Pee Wee must have been your idol. Kind of fits.

>
> > Convergence has zero to do with playing a game on a computer,
>
> One more example of your never-ending stupidity. Convergence has
> everything to with a statistical analysis which is the ONLY way

to

> understand VP.

There you go again. Video poker is reality, and you treat it
like 'analyses' and theory.

That's because it CAN be analyzed just like coin-flips so one can
approach the game intelligently. Nothing you'd ever understand.

Get rea, and start to live whatever life
you have left. Escape that world of make-believe, put down that
stupid slide rule and you'll see what you've been missing.

No slide rules required. Am I the only one that sees Rob continually
spouting archaic terminology? Add to that his NEED to relive his high
school days makes one think he's either been in a coma for 30 years,
he can't keep up with the times or he still lives in the past. I
suspect the latter.

>
> > professor. Then you toss in coinn flips again. Everything but
what video poker does! Typical nerd. Get stumped--change the issue
> around.
>
> The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to

most

> that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-flipping.

Help! Help me! Please!!! I'm been rolling around on the floor
laughing SO loud that my stomach is hurting!! HAHAHAHAHA! Help me!!
VP is a more complex form of coin-flipping?? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've GOT
to use that quote in my next article!! You are soooo strange.....

Please do. But make sure you get your facts straight.

Each
> event is random and independent. Each event has a small number of
> outcomes with a specific liklihood of occuring. Therefore, both
games can be analyzed by statisical techniques providing 100%

proven

> results. Kind of hard to maintain your scam once someone realizes
> this connection.

You are also soooo hilarious when you try. Whenever you're wordy

you

tend to ramble aimlessly because you're a little nervous.
Understandable though, talking to the master of the game.

Like I said, it obvious gets to you, monkey boy.

>
> > I'm right and companies have nothing to do with it. Tosing in
> another topic to cover your butt again??
>
> You'd love that to be true. Too bad it isn't. Statistical
techniques are the same for VP as they are for any other venture.
You deny this in order to perpetuate your scam. One more reason you
are the bigL.

More make-believe, feel-good nonsense again? Have you learned
nothing? You've been confused for a long, long time.

Feels good? ... yes. That's because it all factual.

>
> > > What does your response have to do with the definition
> of "average player". Nothing! Pretty much shows how badly you are
scrambling.

Leave it to a nerd to bring up the term 'average player' when

trying

to be nebulous. Stick with reality. You won't look so dumb or

scared.

Leave it to a scammer to ignore all the facts. If you can't take the
heat ...

Why would I accept your 700K bet? You would renege on it also
because you are, how can put this, a liar and a fraud.
> >
> > More squirmy words have never been written. Here's your final
> chance: $700k cash, proof in Scottsdale or not. YES or NO?
>
> Like I said before, bigL, as soon as we complete the 200K bet we
can move on. Not before. YES or NO???

More Pee Wee Herman again? Let's see....I'm trying to put together

a

$700,000 bet, and you're trying to weasel it into a $200k wimpy

bet.

Hmmmmm...If you had it and weren't lying, why would you reject such
a bet?? Surely, $200k is mere peanuts to a success such as yourself!

200K isn't peanuts to around 99.999% of us. It sure isn't peanuts to
you. What an absolutely idiotic statement.

>
> But, while I wait we can start working out the details of the

700K

> bet. I will need you to put that money in an escrow account, I
will need a written and signed legal contract stating that your
money is mine if I show up with 700K in cash. I will need to have

my

attorney review the contract. I'm not about to pull my money out of
my investments on the word of a proven liar. Are you up for it???

NOW we're getting somewhere. But everyting is I, I, I. I don't need
a lawyer to draw up a simple notarized contract. That's the
difference between an MBA and a simple engineer. And forget about
that stupid $200k bet. Be here on Dec. 4th, I'll have the contract,
we'll go together to get the it notarized, you can then show me the
money, and one of us will be $700k wealthier. Bring your wife along
if you like. We have several Indian casinos that I'm sure you can
make her feel at home in once she plays her very first credit.

Not going to happen that quick. First, the 200K bet. Then we move on
to the 700K. Get it straight.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> I can see the words 'push-ups' rattled you a bit. Kinda feels
> lonesome being fat and old-doesn't it-but at least you've got

your video poker compulsion down pat!

To be honest, I don't do push-ups. I use a weight bench and do
incline presses to strenghten my arms. Another wrench in the monkey
boy theory of life.

Ha! A guy like you doing the weight bench! Who spots for you....the
old lady next door!!?

> You're a clown, right? Back to these fortune 500 companies

because you can't intelligently talk vp?

I've already proven your system is a fraud. You claim the

techniques I use are not valid. That's where the forture 500
companies come in. They use the same techniques for the same reasons.
I can't help it if it makes you look foolish.

More belly laughs for me! All you offer for proof is geek conjecture
based on your dumb probability theories that I'VE already proven to
be fraudulent in video poker. Then you lean on big wording such
as 'Fortune 500', and all that does is add more

> And here's another bright flash to
> light up your dull day: Any analysis these companies you're so
stuck on do are the sole result of historical data--and not geek-
> conjecture as you so commonly hang your hat with the hole in it

on.

Not the "sole result" moron, there's always other parameters as

well.

Now there's the epitomy of a 'Dick' response. Never delineate--always
keep it on a level of being quasi-cloudy with the proof and the facts
so in your next post you can again say "But gee wiz Rob, I've already
given you the facts, and if you don't like it then buzz off
monkeyboy, you liar and fraud".

> The point is they are looking to forecast the future using

statistical techniques. The exact same as advantage VP. I will

admit that VP analysis is MUCH simpler than market forcasting.

Unfortunately for you, monkey boy, it doesn't change FACT that the
techniques apply 100%.

You're in a constant state of daydreaming. Market forcasting is
simple, and not what you make it out to be. This year...next fiscal
year...5-yr. plans are all a piece of cake for any marketing
professional who knows how to use common sense, current actuals,
historical data, and his or her head. All your baloney
about 'statistical techniques' shows just how little you know about
the system, and just how much you like to make believe. So why would
any reasonable person NOT see right thru your constant and failing
attempts at proving anything about video poker when all you know how
to blabber is 'it's theory, fortune 500, and my slide rule says so'!

> Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID provide
> facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.

Actually, it was right here on this forum about a week ago.

Just like I said above. always using some other data from somewhere
else--anywhere but right here right now--to crawl thru the hole you
dug many times over on this.

> You've proven nothing either way,

Oh yes I have. Makes your fraud look pretty obvious, doesn't it?

More Pee Wee Herman crybabying.

> I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify

> your inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.
> > > >
> > > > In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not on
> > vacation.
> > >
> > > Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.
> >
> > Nope. Think about it.
>
> I have. That's why it's staying up there again. I know it eats

away at you knowing (and now seeing it in writing)that you cannot
ever again go on a normal vacation without using the pathetic excuse

that video poker is FUN, but that's why we have old age. It won't

last forever, so you do have hope.

I think you need to understand retirement a little better. You no
longer have to take vacations. Your life is pretty much a vacation.
It's more important to have something to occupy your time and keep
your mind sharp (VP?).

Come on, get real. Have you tried video games? They're much more
interesting and challenging than your game of numbers, and if you
have the money to buy the proper set-up, the audio-video experience
is unbelievable (that is, unless you've lost most of your hearing by
your age and your sight is correctable).

Now, that doesn't mean one doesn't take trips away from their

homes. I've been to Seattle, Naples, San Diego, Boston and many
points in between (I've averaged around 30K miles/year since my
retirement). I've gambled very little on these trips since there's
very little positive VP. Another wrench in monkey boy theory...

Aren't you the one who said he got something like 8 RF's in the past
6 weeks on one of those 'vacations'? I think that might just possibly
take a tad bit more than playing 8 hands. And 30k miles/year? I drive
over 50, and I work full-time at vp....that is, until I reach my win
goal for the year, which happened late 3Q04 this year. Are you able
to go to boston and NOT visit Foxwoods, or SD and NOT hit Harrah's?

By the way, many of the VP advantage players I know are YOUNGer

than the monkey boy. Just another fact to show how lame your posts
have become.

I know a lot more 'advantage players' than the Dick does. They're all
ages, but none have been too old to learn a thing or two from me. So
there's still hope for you yet.

> > > And you believe your own words because they offer

justification for your continued play--as awful and time-consuming as
it is.

> >
> > Has nothing to do with words, bigL. It's all in the math.
>
> It's really all in your head, and since it keeps seaping out of
that hole up there, you have the need to unknowingly repeat

yourself.

It's in the math. I have no problem repeating facts.

'Cause you don't know what these mysterious facts really are, and you
have no other ideas.

> More Pee Wee Herman. Name one person alive who was a success at
work that now plays uncontrollable video poker--and has infected

his innocent wife along the way.

I see Pee Wee must have been your idol. Kind of fits.

That doesn't quite seem to answer the question, professor.

> There you go again. Video poker is reality, and you treat it
> like 'analyses' and theory.

That's because it CAN be analyzed just like coin-flips so one can
approach the game intelligently. Nothing you'd ever understand.

I guess you really do take the simpleton's way out.

> Get real, and start to live whatever life
> you have left. Escape that world of make-believe, put down that
> stupid slide rule and you'll see what you've been missing.

No slide rules required. Am I the only one that sees Rob

continually spouting archaic terminology? Add to that his NEED to
relive his high school days makes one think he's either been in a
coma for 30 years, he can't keep up with the times or he still lives
in the past. I suspect the latter.

What is 'archaic terminology'? It is a bit corny---even for you.

> > The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to
most that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-flipping.
>
> Help! Help me! Please!!! I'm been rolling around on the floor
> laughing SO loud that my stomach is hurting!! HAHAHAHAHA! Help

me!!VP is a more complex form of coin-flipping?? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've
GOT to use that quote in my next article!! You are soooo strange.....

Please do. But make sure you get your facts straight.

I just hope I can write it without stopping to laugh out loud often.

> You are also soooo hilarious when you try. Whenever you're wordy
you
> tend to ramble aimlessly because you're a little nervous.
> Understandable though, talking to the master of the game.

Like I said, it obvious gets to you, monkey boy.

More Pee Wee Herman.

> > > I'm right and companies have nothing to do with it. Tosing in
> > another topic to cover your butt again??
> >
> > You'd love that to be true. Too bad it isn't. Statistical
> techniques are the same for VP as they are for any other venture.
> You deny this in order to perpetuate your scam. One more reason

you are the bigL.

>
> More make-believe, feel-good nonsense again? Have you learned
> nothing? You've been confused for a long, long time.

Feels good? ... yes. That's because it all factual.

you missed the make-believe part. how's that make you 'feel'?

> Leave it to a nerd to bring up the term 'average player' when
trying to be nebulous. Stick with reality. You won't look so dumb

or scared.

Leave it to a scammer to ignore all the facts. If you can't take

the heat ...

There's that reference to the missing facts again.

> But, while I wait we can start working out the details of the

700K bet. I will need you to put that money in an escrow account, I
> will need a written and signed legal contract stating that your
> money is mine if I show up with 700K in cash. I will need to have
my attorney review the contract. I'm not about to pull my money out

of my investments on the word of a proven liar. Are you up for it???

>
> NOW we're getting somewhere. But everyting is I, I, I. I don't

need a lawyer to draw up a simple notarized contract. That's the

> difference between an MBA and a simple engineer. And forget about
> that stupid $200k bet. Be here on Dec. 4th, I'll have the

contract, we'll go together to get the it notarized, you can then
show me the money, and one of us will be $700k wealthier. Bring your
wife along if you like. We have several Indian casinos that I'm sure
you can make her feel at home in once she plays her very first
credit.

Not going to happen that quick. First, the 200K bet. Then we move

on to the 700K. Get it straight.

This kind of proves you're a fake with no money. Here you have what
you word out to be a free $700k for you, with me having no bet
opportunity that allows me to win $700k from you (because if you
don't have the money how am I supposed to get paid) and you're still
stuck on the peanuts. Why.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > I can see the words 'push-ups' rattled you a bit. Kinda feels
> > lonesome being fat and old-doesn't it-but at least you've got
your video poker compulsion down pat!
>
> To be honest, I don't do push-ups. I use a weight bench and do
> incline presses to strenghten my arms. Another wrench in the

monkey

> boy theory of life.

Ha! A guy like you doing the weight bench! Who spots for you....the
old lady next door!!?

I don't do the heavy weights. I use weights for muscle tone and
general fitness.

>
> > You're a clown, right? Back to these fortune 500 companies
because you can't intelligently talk vp?
>
> I've already proven your system is a fraud. You claim the
techniques I use are not valid. That's where the forture 500
companies come in. They use the same techniques for the same

reasons.

I can't help it if it makes you look foolish.

More belly laughs for me! All you offer for proof is geek

conjecture

based on your dumb probability theories that I'VE already proven to
be fraudulent in video poker.

The only thing you've PROVEN is that you are a failure at VP and your
immense ego won't let you accept it. For the rest of us, we see the
that probability theory works just as good for VP as it does for
thousands of other applications. Let go of your ego and see the truth.

Then you lean on big wording such
as 'Fortune 500', and all that does is add more

You were trying to say something??? Another problem for you is that
these Fortune 500 companies are only the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to uses for basic probability theory. Let go of your ego and
see the truth.

> The point is they are looking to forecast the future using
> statistical techniques. The exact same as advantage VP. I will
admit that VP analysis is MUCH simpler than market forcasting.
> Unfortunately for you, monkey boy, it doesn't change FACT that

the

> techniques apply 100%.

You're in a constant state of daydreaming. Market forcasting is
simple, and not what you make it out to be. This year...next fiscal
year...5-yr. plans are all a piece of cake for any marketing
professional who knows how to use common sense, current actuals,
historical data, and his or her head.

Sure it is ... In any event, VP usage of statistical techniques is
still much simpler. Are you trying to prove my point here?

>
> > Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID

provide

> > facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.
>
> Actually, it was right here on this forum about a week ago.

Just like I said above. always using some other data from somewhere
else--anywhere but right here right now--to crawl thru the hole you
dug many times over on this.

I'm sure if there's anyone reading these notes but the two of us they
can remember my proof from the last two weeks.

> I've noticed you shy away from statements which identify
> > your inability to take a non-gambling vacation any longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case you missed it several times already ... I'm not

on

> > > vacation.
> > > >
> > > > Avoiding the issue again, professor? Think about it.
> > >
> > > Nope. Think about it.
> >
> > I have. That's why it's staying up there again. I know it eats
away at you knowing (and now seeing it in writing)that you cannot
ever again go on a normal vacation without using the pathetic

excuse

> that video poker is FUN, but that's why we have old age. It won't
last forever, so you do have hope.
>
> I think you need to understand retirement a little better. You no
> longer have to take vacations. Your life is pretty much a

vacation.

> It's more important to have something to occupy your time and

keep

> your mind sharp (VP?).

Come on, get real. Have you tried video games? They're much more
interesting and challenging than your game of numbers, and if you
have the money to buy the proper set-up, the audio-video experience
is unbelievable (that is, unless you've lost most of your hearing

by

your age and your sight is correctable).

Can't make a dime playing video games.

>
> Now, that doesn't mean one doesn't take trips away from their
homes. I've been to Seattle, Naples, San Diego, Boston and many
points in between (I've averaged around 30K miles/year since my
retirement). I've gambled very little on these trips since there's
very little positive VP. Another wrench in monkey boy theory...

Aren't you the one who said he got something like 8 RF's in the

past

6 weeks on one of those 'vacations'?

Nope. And I'm up to 10 RFs now. You sure are dense, if you had read
some of my June posts with comprehension you would understand.

I think that might just possibly
take a tad bit more than playing 8 hands. And 30k miles/year? I

drive

over 50, and I work full-time at vp....that is, until I reach my

win

goal for the year, which happened late 3Q04 this year. Are you able
to go to boston and NOT visit Foxwoods, or SD and NOT hit Harrah's?

I've never been to either of them either. I've heard there are NO
positive games.

>
> By the way, many of the VP advantage players I know are YOUNGer
than the monkey boy. Just another fact to show how lame your posts
have become.

I know a lot more 'advantage players' than the Dick does. They're

all

ages, but none have been too old to learn a thing or two from me.

So

there's still hope for you yet.

There's goes the monkey boy again. Let go of your ego and see the
truth.

>
> > > > And you believe your own words because they offer
justification for your continued play--as awful and time-consuming

as

it is.
> > >
> > > Has nothing to do with words, bigL. It's all in the math.
> >
> > It's really all in your head, and since it keeps seaping out of
> that hole up there, you have the need to unknowingly repeat
yourself.
>
> It's in the math. I have no problem repeating facts.

'Cause you don't know what these mysterious facts really are, and

you

have no other ideas.

I provided you with all the facts you'll ever need in my proof. Let
go of your ego and see the truth.

>
> > There you go again. Video poker is reality, and you treat it
> > like 'analyses' and theory.
>
> That's because it CAN be analyzed just like coin-flips so one can
> approach the game intelligently. Nothing you'd ever understand.

I guess you really do take the simpleton's way out.

That's "simple" because all VP is is the application of simple
statistical techniques. Let go of your ego and see the truth.

>
> > Get real, and start to live whatever life
> > you have left. Escape that world of make-believe, put down that
> > stupid slide rule and you'll see what you've been missing.
>
> No slide rules required. Am I the only one that sees Rob
continually spouting archaic terminology? Add to that his NEED to
relive his high school days makes one think he's either been in a
coma for 30 years, he can't keep up with the times or he still

lives

in the past. I suspect the latter.

What is 'archaic terminology'? It is a bit corny---even for you.

Why am I not surprised. Rob has no clue.

>
> > > The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to
> most that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-

flipping.

> >
> > Help! Help me! Please!!! I'm been rolling around on the floor
> > laughing SO loud that my stomach is hurting!! HAHAHAHAHA! Help
me!!VP is a more complex form of coin-flipping?? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've
GOT to use that quote in my next article!! You are soooo

strange.....

>
> Please do. But make sure you get your facts straight.

I just hope I can write it without stopping to laugh out loud often.

Be sure to make that "only slighty more complex". You're so stupid
you'd demonstrate it in your own writings for everyone to see. I love
it.

>
> But, while I wait we can start working out the details of the
> 700K bet. I will need you to put that money in an escrow account,

I

> > will need a written and signed legal contract stating that your
> > money is mine if I show up with 700K in cash. I will need to

have

> my attorney review the contract. I'm not about to pull my money

out

of my investments on the word of a proven liar. Are you up for it???
> >
> > NOW we're getting somewhere. But everyting is I, I, I. I don't
need a lawyer to draw up a simple notarized contract. That's the
> > difference between an MBA and a simple engineer. And forget

about

> > that stupid $200k bet. Be here on Dec. 4th, I'll have the
contract, we'll go together to get the it notarized, you can then
show me the money, and one of us will be $700k wealthier. Bring

your

wife along if you like. We have several Indian casinos that I'm

sure

you can make her feel at home in once she plays her very first
credit.
>
> Not going to happen that quick. First, the 200K bet. Then we move
on to the 700K. Get it straight.

This kind of proves you're a fake with no money. Here you have what
you word out to be a free $700k for you, with me having no bet
opportunity that allows me to win $700k from you (because if you
don't have the money how am I supposed to get paid) and you're

still

stuck on the peanuts. Why.

Because I KNOW you're not going to give me $200K or $700K just for
showing up with it. It's just more of your 3rd grade bravado.

However, if you're willing to put the money in an account with a
legal binding contract then I will be more than happy to take it from
you. If you're not willing to do it, then it was all useless bluster
in the first place.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

···

-----------------------------------------------------------
I'll let you know right up front that you are as chicken about
making bets with me & then backing out of them after I up the ante
as all vp 'advantage players' have been with me. Welcome to the
group of losers and cowards! Don't bother saying anything else
unless it's "Yes, Rob, I will bet you the $700k--fully knowing that
I'm the only one here who can walk away with the other guy's money
because if I lose that means I don't really have the money to pay
you anyway!! How pathetic.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> And here's another bright flash to
> light up your dull day: Any analysis these companies you're so
stuck on do are the sole result of historical data--and not geek-
> conjecture as you so commonly hang your hat with the hole in it

on.

Not the "sole result" moron, there's always other parameters as

well.

Hold it! One more fine example of the Dick trying to look
intelligent but mysteriously leaves out all the 'other' parameters.

> > You've provided nothing to refute the proof. QED.
>
> Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID provide
> facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.

Actually, it was right here on this forum about a week ago.

More of the same cloudy answers without clear substance.

> > The coin-flips really get to you, don't they? It's obvious to
most that VP is just a slightly more complex form of coin-flipping.
>
> Help! Help me! Please!!! I'm been rolling around on the floor
> laughing SO loud that my stomach is hurting!! HAHAHAHAHA! Help

me!! VP is a more complex form of coin-flipping?? HAHAHAHA!!!! I've
GOT to use that quote in my next article!! You are soooo strange.....

Please do. But make sure you get your facts straight.

200K isn't peanuts to around 99.999% of us. It sure isn't peanuts

to you. What an absolutely idiotic statement.

Where's your intellect again? $200k is peanuts compared to $700k. Of
course, you've never seen a third of $200k, so you'll have a whole
different perspective--as you just notated for us.

[rgmustain]

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

-----------------------------------------------------------
I'll let you know right up front that you are as chicken about
making bets with me & then backing out of them after I up the ante
as all vp 'advantage players' have been with me. Welcome to the
group of losers and cowards! Don't bother saying anything else
unless it's "Yes, Rob, I will bet you the $700k--fully knowing that
I'm the only one here who can walk away with the other guy's money
because if I lose that means I don't really have the money to pay
you anyway!! How pathetic.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Good try monkey boy, but everyone already knows you've reneged on the
200K bet and would do EXACTLY the same on a 700K bet. You're immense
ego is trying to find a place to hide. Good Luck.

> > And here's another bright flash to
> > light up your dull day: Any analysis these companies you're so
> stuck on do are the sole result of historical data--and not geek-
> > conjecture as you so commonly hang your hat with the hole in it
on.
>
> Not the "sole result" moron, there's always other parameters as
well.

Hold it! One more fine example of the Dick trying to look
intelligent but mysteriously leaves out all the 'other' parameters.

When doing market analysis, oh immense moron, there are always
parameters unique to a given industry. Pick an industry and we can
discuss potential factors.

> > > You've provided nothing to refute the proof. QED.
> >
> > Again, more of the same "But, humma humma humma....I DID

provide

> > facts". Maybe you did in that make-believe mind of yours.
>
> Actually, it was right here on this forum about a week ago.
>
More of the same cloudy answers without clear substance.

Just facts, as usual. You own personal cloudy answers have become the
majority of your replies. But then, your replies NEVER include any
facts so they might as well be cloudy too.

>
> 200K isn't peanuts to around 99.999% of us. It sure isn't peanuts
to you. What an absolutely idiotic statement.

Where's your intellect again? $200k is peanuts compared to $700k.

Still not peanuts, bigL.

Of
course, you've never seen a third of $200k, so you'll have a whole
different perspective--as you just notated for us.

Are you willing to go ahead with the 200K bet now, or is your RENEGE
still in force??? I'll show up there with my 200K just as soon as
you give the word.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

> -----------------------------------------------------------
> I'll let you know right up front that you are as chicken about
> making bets with me & then backing out of them after I up the

ante

> as all vp 'advantage players' have been with me. Welcome to the
> group of losers and cowards! Don't bother saying anything else
> unless it's "Yes, Rob, I will bet you the $700k--fully knowing

that

> I'm the only one here who can walk away with the other guy's

money

> because if I lose that means I don't really have the money to pay
> you anyway!! How pathetic.
> -----------------------------------------------------------

Good try monkey boy, but everyone already knows you've reneged on

the 200K bet and would do EXACTLY the same on a 700K bet. You're
immense ego is trying to find a place to hide. Good Luck.

What a sissy's way out you take. You've got a chance at a one-way
bet, and all you have to do is show what a BIG man you are, and you
scamper away once again in the face of a strong opponent. Reminds me
of what Dancer did. Instead of that geek conjecture, why don't you
just give it a go? You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain?.

> > Not the "sole result" moron, there's always other parameters as
> well.
>
> Hold it! One more fine example of the Dick trying to look
> intelligent but mysteriously leaves out all the 'other'

parameters.

When doing market analysis, oh immense moron, there are always
parameters unique to a given industry. Pick an industry and we can
discuss potential factors.

That's baloney and you SHOULD know it. Market analysis is determined
by a common set of parameters across business, and if you don't know
them you are full of it. So let's have them, genius.

  
> Where's your intellect again? $200k is peanuts compared to $700k.

Still not peanuts, bigL.

Then that confirms my suspicion of just how low class you really are.

Are you willing to go ahead with the 200K bet now, or is your

RENEGE still in force??? I'll show up there with my 200K just as
soon as you give the word.

How's this? I RENEGE on the $200k bet in favor of the $700k bet. It's
now or never, peanut boy.

···

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