What a joke! By the way, true and false are logical results, you
should spend some time understand what they really mean.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
The difference is, I always tell the truth.
Fw: Video Poker in Texas?
Goals do make a difference, however, Rob promotes his system for
the long term so this is really irrelevant.
That's incorrect in 2 ways: I do not 'promote' my Play Strategies in
the way that you infer. If I did I would be selling them and making a
bundle. And, there is no such term as "the long term" to me. Every
session I go to Nevada to play begins and ends there. The only
cumulative aspect is in the adding up of profits.
Now you're starting to sound just like RS. This is not how most
advantage players operate. We have to foresight to realize that
over our lives we will play millions of hands and proceed accordingly.
Advantage players are controlled by casinos. If TI put in a bank of
25c/50c/$1 FPDW games, you'd all go there until you lost every dime.
If MGM Casinos Inc. began a triple point/gift bonanza promotion of
some sort, you'd all go to them until you lost every dime. You guys
even go to dumps like Arizona Charlies and Fiesta Rancho on 2 fer 1
buffet days that coincide with quadruple godzilla point days just to
feel good about your habit. Play millions of hands? Only when and
where the casinos want you to.
The main problem is Rob Singer says you should ALWAYS hold only the
Ace. This is clearly wrong for players looking for a long term
advantage.
That's not true. It's true MOST of the time, but when the dealt hand
that includes that Ace has a very good other hold having the
possibility of getting me to a particular goal with it, I hold the
Ace plus.
You really are missing the main point about progressive systems. In
random games all hands are independent. This allows you to use
simple addition properties to group hands in any way you wish without
changing the probabilities. Therefore, for any reasonable good
example you can describe I can take the very same hands and
describe a bad result. The results will have equal probabilty. All a
progressive system leads to is more small winning sessions and a
few big loses. The overall payback is unchanged.
I hear that theory all the time, and it doesn't hold water in
practice. That's the problem with sitting at home and reading math
books--you lose touch with the reality of play. You forgot to include
the change in volatility, the special plays that deviate from expert
play, and the sizeable bankroll to get through it all.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Rob shows once more he can't answer any question directly. Instead
he continually goes off on tangents to avoid the questions. His
response to the 1 in 47 chance of hitting to RF4 vs. 1 in 5 shows he
completely lacks any understanding of simple logic. If ignorance is
bliss then Rob must indeed be a happy person.
Once again, you're typing with your slide rule in-hand. Put it down
and enjoy the world! 1 in 47 is correct BEFORE you deal the cards. 1
in 5 is correct AFTER you deal and BEFORE you draw. At home, you
alwyas look at it as a mathmatician would up front. At the machine,
there is no math--only reality defined.
PS. Rob, Look at the paytable on a roulette wheel. This is not only
2:1 either. You can also double your bets. So, come on, put your
money where your mouth is! Use your system playing roulette.
You brought up roulette because you compared Martingale with how I
play. Making roulette bets and vp bets are very different because of
the payouts and number of equal-money vp bets I make in a row. You
need a math bath.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
OK, so now I'll call YOU to the carpet. Define where I do not tell
the truth, and show proof....you know, like a mathematician would.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> The difference is, I always tell the truth.What a joke! By the way, true and false are logical results, you
should spend some time understand what they really mean.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Goals do make a difference, however, Rob promotes his system for
the long term so this is really irrelevant.That's incorrect in 2 ways: I do not 'promote' my Play Strategies
in
the way that you infer. If I did I would be selling them and making
a
bundle.
Yeah, right.
And, there is no such term as "the long term" to me. Every
session I go to Nevada to play begins and ends there. The only
cumulative aspect is in the adding up of profits.
Good I'm glad to hear you'll be promoting a different strategy in the
future.
>
> Now you're starting to sound just like RS. This is not how most
> advantage players operate. We have to foresight to realize that
over our lives we will play millions of hands and proceed
accordingly.
Advantage players are controlled by casinos. If TI put in a bank of
25c/50c/$1 FPDW games, you'd all go there until you lost every
dime.
If MGM Casinos Inc. began a triple point/gift bonanza promotion of
some sort, you'd all go to them until you lost every dime. You guys
even go to dumps like Arizona Charlies and Fiesta Rancho on 2 fer 1
buffet days that coincide with quadruple godzilla point days just
to
feel good about your habit. Play millions of hands? Only when and
where the casinos want you to.
So, why don't they put in the $1 FPDW? Could it be they know the
advantage players would, indeed, flock there and they would lose
money? The fact there aren't $1 FPDW all around town is plenty of
evidence that you are, once again, completely wrong.
Please come up with some more idiotic examples.
>
> The main problem is Rob Singer says you should ALWAYS hold only
the
> Ace. This is clearly wrong for players looking for a long term
> advantage.That's not true. It's true MOST of the time, but when the dealt
hand
that includes that Ace has a very good other hold having the
possibility of getting me to a particular goal with it, I hold the
Ace plus.
I was referring to E's A34 example. Please try to keep up.
>
> You really are missing the main point about progressive systems.
In
> random games all hands are independent. This allows you to use
simple addition properties to group hands in any way you wish
without
> changing the probabilities. Therefore, for any reasonable good
> example you can describe I can take the very same hands and
describe a bad result. The results will have equal probabilty. All
a
> progressive system leads to is more small winning sessions and a
few big loses. The overall payback is unchanged.I hear that theory all the time, and it doesn't hold water in
practice. That's the problem with sitting at home and reading math
books--you lose touch with the reality of play. You forgot to
include
the change in volatility, the special plays that deviate from
expert
play, and the sizeable bankroll to get through it all.
Yada, yada, yada. We've heard it all before from you and the laws of
the universe still haven't changed to make any of your theories
valid. You should try sitting at home reading once in awhile instead
of trying to feed your ego.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
Once again, you're typing with your slide rule in-hand. Put it down
and enjoy the world! 1 in 47 is correct BEFORE you deal the cards.
1
in 5 is correct AFTER you deal and BEFORE you draw. At home, you
alwyas look at it as a mathmatician would up front. At the machine,
there is no math--only reality defined.
What a stupid remark. You're saying "1 in 47 is correct BEFORE you
deal the cards". What kind of logic is this? If we all got RFs once
every 47 hands we'd all be rich.
Then you go on to say "1 in 5 is correct AFTER you deal and BEFORE
you draw". This is remarkably stupid as well since you must assume
the required card is in the 5 cards for this to be true. This is
simply not true for a random game. You can't use your "it doesn't
matter if it isn't there" fallacious logic either. You might as well
say your chances are 1 in 1 if the card is in the first position and
otherwise it doesn't matter. Same stupid logic.
> PS. Rob, Look at the paytable on a roulette wheel. This is not
only
> 2:1 either. You can also double your bets. So, come on, put your
> money where your mouth is! Use your system playing roulette.You brought up roulette because you compared Martingale with how I
play. Making roulette bets and vp bets are very different because
of
the payouts and number of equal-money vp bets I make in a row. You
need a math bath.
You can make just as many "equal-money bets in a row" you want at
roulette. Come on, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
OK, you stated I made up the A5 hold example. I didn't, however, that
really doesn't matter. It was not a truthful assertion on your part
since you had no idea whether I was telling the truth or not. QED
Now I've proven you're a liar.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
OK, so now I'll call YOU to the carpet. Define where I do not tell
the truth, and show proof....you know, like a mathematician would.
Yeah, right.
Can you say that in Russian?
> And, there is no such term as "the long term" to me. Every
> session I go to Nevada to play begins and ends there. The only
> cumulative aspect is in the adding up of profits.Good I'm glad to hear you'll be promoting a different strategy in
the future.
Where'd you hear that?
So, why don't they put in the $1 FPDW? Could it be they know the
advantage players would, indeed, flock there and they would lose
money? The fact there aren't $1 FPDW all around town is plenty of
evidence that you are, once again, completely wrong.
Please come up with some more idiotic examples.
You know why there aren't any $1 FPDW games around town. They don't
hold as much as the lower paytables do--simple common business
sense...duh. The same reason there are no 11/7 DB games. The flaw
with 'advantage player's' thinking is nothing but a solid gleam in
any casino manager's eye: Send out a promotion, and no player who
thinks he (or she, of course) can win because of a theoretical 1.7%
over billions of hands can turn it down. That spells huge profits,
and is a far better way of making money from them than eeking out a
hold percentage from all these people on $1 or $100 FPDW.
I was referring to E's A34 example. Please try to keep up.
Take the blinders off and go back and read what both of us said. Or
are your eyes googly from sliding that rule?
You should try sitting at home reading once in awhile instead
of trying to feed your ego.
Folks like you feed my ego. Every time you say unsupportable, crazy
things only a robot would put out, it gives me mileage.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
What a stupid remark. You're saying "1 in 47 is correct BEFORE you
deal the cards". What kind of logic is this? If we all got RFs once
every 47 hands we'd all be rich.
You're either eating popcorn or drinking the funny juice. 1 in 47
means that's what the odds will be IF you get dealt RF4 and you
consider the draw at that time. Once it's dealt, it's down to 1 in 5
IF the lucky card is in that group. Sooooo easy.
Then you go on to say "1 in 5 is correct AFTER you deal and BEFORE
you draw". This is remarkably stupid as well since you must assume
the required card is in the 5 cards for this to be true. This is
simply not true for a random game. You can't use your "it doesn't
matter if it isn't there" fallacious logic either. You might as
well say your chances are 1 in 1 if the card is in the first position
and otherwise it doesn't matter. Same stupid logic.
Get back to reality and put that slide rule down please! Are you that
much of a geek? Let's do this: Assume you're in a casino and are
dealt RF4. You're the type that says "I've got a 1 in 47 chance of
drawing the winning card". That's a typical, defeatest attitude from
one who believes everything in vp has to do with some kind of
nebulous skill. I on the other hand say "There's a 1 in 5 chance of
getting it if I was lucky enough to get in incorporated into the draw
cards". The chance is basically the same once the whole picture is
there. You just like to think of it as a tough challenge while I see
it as fun. In fact, in the past 5 weeks I've received 11 RF4's. I've
converted 2 of them--one on dollars and one on a $5 progressive. Both
times, that 1-in-5 chance paid off.
You can make just as many "equal-money bets in a row" you want at
roulette. Come on, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!
Still you're confused. An equal money bet 40 times in a row on vp can
yield anything from a loss to a RF. You have to make a specific bet
on a roulette wheel in order to identify what payoff you're playing
for. You analogy makes no sense.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
OK, you stated I made up the A5 hold example. I didn't, however,
that really doesn't matter. It was not a truthful assertion on your
part since you had no idea whether I was telling the truth or not. QED
Now I've proven you're a liar.
I believe the correct version is "You guys always have to make up
stories". Technically, I did not say you were making one up this
time. But with your twisted logic, if you claim you were not telling
the truth and did make it up, you'd still say I had no idea if you
were telling the truth or not so I'd still be lying. QED: Try again.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> What a stupid remark. You're saying "1 in 47 is correct BEFORE
you
> deal the cards". What kind of logic is this? If we all got RFs
once
> every 47 hands we'd all be rich.
You're either eating popcorn or drinking the funny juice. 1 in 47
means that's what the odds will be IF you get dealt RF4 and you
consider the draw at that time.
Then that's what you should have said. I put YOUR statement in
quotes. Read it again. Nothing there about RF4.
Once it's dealt, it's down to 1 in 5
IF the lucky card is in that group. Sooooo easy.
Actually, using your own twisted logic you can't say your chances are
1-5 either. Let's see if you can understand because it's "Sooooo
easy."
1) First, just about all new machines from IGT keep shuffling the
remaining 47 cards until you press draw. You really do have a 1-47
chance. However, if you want to limit your dicussion to older
machines that's fine too, because ...
2) I believe you base your 1 in 5 premise on the way these older
machines operated. You are dealt 10 cards when deal is pressed and
five of them are displayed. The others are kept hidden until you
press draw and then, in the RF4 case, the top card of those five is
selected. Your twisted logic discounts the 42 cards that were not
originally selected even though you have no idea which cards were
selected. However, like I said before the order of the hidden 5 cards
was also selected ON THE ORIGINAL DEAL. So, if your going to discount
the 42 cards not selected you MUST also discount the 4 cards not in
the first position. It's your own stupid logic. Therefore, using your
logic consistently yields a 1 in 1 chance.
Another problem with your logic (as if one were needed) is that you
don't know anything about the 5 cards that were selected (or their
positions). This is essentially USELESS information. You cannot make
any decisions based on useless information. You can only make
decisions on the information you DO have. What is that information?
You started with a 52 card deck and 5 cards have been shown. One of
the other 47 cards that completes the RF MAY be in the first
position. Each one of those 47 cards had an EQUAL chance of being in
that first position when deal was pressed. Hence, you have a 1 in 47
chance of getting the RF.
>
> Then you go on to say "1 in 5 is correct AFTER you deal and
BEFORE
> you draw". This is remarkably stupid as well since you must
assume
> the required card is in the 5 cards for this to be true. This is
> simply not true for a random game. You can't use your "it doesn't
> matter if it isn't there" fallacious logic either. You might as
well say your chances are 1 in 1 if the card is in the first
position
and otherwise it doesn't matter. Same stupid logic.
Get back to reality and put that slide rule down please! Are you
that
much of a geek? Let's do this: Assume you're in a casino and are
dealt RF4. You're the type that says "I've got a 1 in 47 chance of
drawing the winning card". That's a typical, defeatest attitude
from
one who believes everything in vp has to do with some kind of
nebulous skill. I on the other hand say "There's a 1 in 5 chance of
getting it if I was lucky enough to get in incorporated into the
draw
cards". The chance is basically the same once the whole picture is
there. You just like to think of it as a tough challenge while I
see
it as fun. In fact, in the past 5 weeks I've received 11 RF4's.
I've
converted 2 of them--one on dollars and one on a $5 progressive.
Both
times, that 1-in-5 chance paid off.
Wait, your own twisted logic indicates your chances were 1 in 1. What
happened?
The very last time I was dealt RF4 I hit the RF. That is 1 out of 1.
I guess that makes my 1 in 47 logic "more fun" than your 1 in 5
logic.
>
> You can make just as many "equal-money bets in a row" you want at
> roulette. Come on, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!!!!Still you're confused. An equal money bet 40 times in a row on vp
can
yield anything from a loss to a RF. You have to make a specific bet
on a roulette wheel in order to identify what payoff you're playing
for. You analogy makes no sense.
The analogy make sense when you're claiming a progressive system
somehow turns a losing game into a winning game. Actually, you should
have taken my challenge. You had a pretty good chance of coming out
ahead because a progressive system in roulette will generate a high
percentage of small wins just like your progressive system does in
VP. And, just like in VP, it does not change the odds of the game so
you will lose eventually.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
I believe the correct version is "You guys always have to make up
stories". Technically, I did not say you were making one up this
time. But with your twisted logic, if you claim you were not
telling
the truth and did make it up, you'd still say I had no idea if you
were telling the truth or not so I'd still be lying. QED: Try again.
Not necessary. Your statement is still false since I did not make up
this story and therefore "technically" proves you don't ALWAYS tell
the truth.
Before making your stupid assertions you should realize my example
was not all that unusual. In the game this person was playing, OEJs,
the correct play often is to hold SF2 when you have nothing else to
hold. However, they should not have held it in this case because of
the 3 gaps. I hit SF2 quite often since there's two wild cards and
every now and then it turns out to be a natural SF.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
You really are missing the main point about progressive systems. In
random games all hands are independent. This allows you to use
simple
addition properties to group hands in any way you wish without
changing the probabilities. Therefore, for any reasonable good
example you can describe I can take the very same hands and
describe
a bad result. The results will have equal probabilty. All a
progressive system leads to is more small winning sessions and a
few
big loses. The overall payback is unchanged.
Dick
These posts are so long you guys might as well rewrite Feller's two
volumes on probability theory and its applications, LOL.
I think one should make a practical distinction, maybe, between the
lofty realms of pure mathematics and the gambling halls.
Let's try roulette. The Martingale system is wonderful, it would
work "in practice" were it not for those table limits. Just have a
bankroll large enough. Have you ever seen red come out a hundred
consecutive times? I would say the casino would close a wheel if that
happened. I think once the number seven came out nine consecutive
times somewhere -I might be misremembering this number of times, in
any case it was a single digit number of times- and it made gambling
history. In the space of infinite events that mathematicians
consider, the number seven can come out any number of consecutive
times, the color red can also appear any number of consecutive times.
In practice, in all my years of gambling, I have never seen seven
come out more than four consecutive times, and red not more than
twenty consecutive times. I'm exaggerating the numbers so as to
compensate for tricks of memory. If roulette tables did not have
those maximum limits, casinos would not be offering the game now due
to all the players making money on the Martingale system. If you
accept the preceding -and I'm not sure you do- then why would it be
wrong for someone with a working knowledge of casino games to adopt
styles of play that would minimize losing sessions by devising
progressive schemes? This guy would not have to rewrite mathematical
treatises. He only has to disregard events with very low
probabilities, which is exactly the same type of thing the so-
called "advantage player" does in VP when he dismisses that paper
thin long left tail of the Gaussian curve, representing huge losses.
In the first case the practical result -at least on vpFREE- is to
criticize the enterprising people who want to try new things; in the
second case you tell those guys located on the left tail after years
and thousands of hours gambling, "nobody said it was a sure thing to
win on positive games".
I don't make a living out of gambling. I don't live near Las Vegas,
nor do I have a huge bankroll to try some of the things that I read
have been suggested. I do try different things suggested and I
welcome anyone who rebels at the dictum, "what happens in Vegas,
stays in Vegas" and proposes instead that you take home with you what
happens in Vegas, LOL.
If we stick to reasonably good games and machines, and don't go
overboard, I don't think we are exposed to financial ruin, even if we
try different things. Good luck.
E
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
These posts are so long you guys might as well rewrite Feller's two
volumes on probability theory and its applications, LOL.
Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black 
I think one should make a practical distinction, maybe, between the
lofty realms of pure mathematics and the gambling halls.
There is nothing lofty about the simple mathematics used to describe
VP. It only SEEMS lofty if you don't take the time to understand it.
Let's try roulette. The Martingale system is wonderful, it would
work "in practice" were it not for those table limits.
Why do you think casinos have these limits? They understand the math
perfectly well.
Just have a
bankroll large enough. Have you ever seen red come out a hundred
consecutive times? I would say the casino would close a wheel if
that
happened. I think once the number seven came out nine consecutive
times somewhere -I might be misremembering this number of times, in
any case it was a single digit number of times- and it made
gambling
history. In the space of infinite events that mathematicians
consider, the number seven can come out any number of consecutive
times, the color red can also appear any number of consecutive
times.
In practice, in all my years of gambling, I have never seen seven
come out more than four consecutive times, and red not more than
twenty consecutive times. I'm exaggerating the numbers so as to
compensate for tricks of memory. If roulette tables did not have
those maximum limits, casinos would not be offering the game now
due
to all the players making money on the Martingale system. If you
accept the preceding -and I'm not sure you do- then why would it be
wrong for someone with a working knowledge of casino games to adopt
styles of play that would minimize losing sessions by devising
progressive schemes?
Ever seen a $1000 dollar VP machine? The fact that you can't
continually progress upward in denomination provides the same limit
to VP that table limits do with roulette and BJ.
This guy would not have to rewrite mathematical
treatises. He only has to disregard events with very low
probabilities, which is exactly the same type of thing the so-
called "advantage player" does in VP when he dismisses that paper
thin long left tail of the Gaussian curve, representing huge
losses.
In the first case the practical result -at least on vpFREE- is to
criticize the enterprising people who want to try new things;
I don't think most vpfree posters care if you want to try new things.
I sure don't. However, when someone, like Rob, attempts to discount
mathematically sounds principles and replace them with bogus logic,
that will bring on plenty of criticism.
in the
second case you tell those guys located on the left tail after
years
and thousands of hours gambling, "nobody said it was a sure thing
to
win on positive games".
Actually, they should understand this BEFORE their thousands of hours
of gambling if they read what's presented on vpfree.
I don't make a living out of gambling. I don't live near Las Vegas,
nor do I have a huge bankroll to try some of the things that I read
have been suggested. I do try different things suggested and I
welcome anyone who rebels at the dictum, "what happens in Vegas,
stays in Vegas" and proposes instead that you take home with you
what
happens in Vegas, LOL.
Don't get caught up in the marketing hype. It means nothing.
If we stick to reasonably good games and machines, and don't go
overboard, I don't think we are exposed to financial ruin, even if
we
try different things. Good luck.
E
I don't disagree with this. It's the "overboard" problem I'd worry
about.
Dick
Actually, using your own twisted logic you can't say your chances
are 1-5 either. Let's see if you can understand because it's "Sooooo
easy."
1) First, just about all new machines from IGT keep shuffling the
remaining 47 cards until you press draw. You really do have a 1-47
chance. However, if you want to limit your dicussion to older
machines that's fine too, because ...
That's not correct. If you get you 'all new machines' information
from someone with more knowledge than my acquantaince who is a
software design engineer up there, please let me know. If it's from
one of the hacks on vpfree or elsewhere who say something only
because they WANT it to be like that in order to create a feel-good
position of some sort for themselves, then you'll believe anything
they say. The shuffle stops immediately after the 10 cards are dealt,
and it has been like that for years now. There has been initial
planning to change that, but there is internal disagreement as to why
or whether that is necessary or not.
2) I believe you base your 1 in 5 premise on the way these older
machines operated. You are dealt 10 cards when deal is pressed and
five of them are displayed. The others are kept hidden until you
press draw and then, in the RF4 case, the top card of those five is
selected. Your twisted logic discounts the 42 cards that were not
originally selected even though you have no idea which cards were
selected. However, like I said before the order of the hidden 5
cards was also selected ON THE ORIGINAL DEAL. So, if your going to
discount the 42 cards not selected you MUST also discount the 4 cards
not in the first position. It's your own stupid logic. Therefore,
using your logic consistently yields a 1 in 1 chance.
That's weak. You're putting together a scenario that works one way
and then say it doesn't. I said you have a 1 in 5 chance, and that's
what you really have if the winning card is lucky enough to be
included within the 5. There's no reasoning associated with that
which allows 'discounting' the 4 position cards. Don't twist it any
more--keep it reasonable.
Another problem with your logic (as if one were needed) is that you
don't know anything about the 5 cards that were selected (or their
positions). This is essentially USELESS information. You cannot
make any decisions based on useless information. You can only make
decisions on the information you DO have. What is that information?
You started with a 52 card deck and 5 cards have been shown. One of
the other 47 cards that completes the RF MAY be in the first
position. Each one of those 47 cards had an EQUAL chance of being
in that first position when deal was pressed. Hence, you have a 1 in
47 chance of getting the RF.
When you come to grips that luck accounts for over 90% of the reason
why one wins or loses at vp, you'll see what I mean. Right now you
wear the blinders. Positions don't matter when you're wondering what
chance you have to hit that royal. If you're lucky enough to get that
5th card into those 5, then you'll hope it's next--just as in any
draw.
The very last time I was dealt RF4 I hit the RF. That is 1 out of
1. I guess that makes my 1 in 47 logic "more fun" than your 1 in 5
logic.
Yeah, I missed my last 3, but yours was probably on quarters.
The analogy make sense when you're claiming a progressive system
somehow turns a losing game into a winning game. Actually, you
should have taken my challenge. You had a pretty good chance of
coming out ahead because a progressive system in roulette will
generate a high percentage of small wins just like your progressive
system does in VP. And, just like in VP, it does not change the odds
of the game so you will lose eventually.
Again, more sit-at-home theory. You guys are good at that, because it
allows you to hide behind your machines and not have to eithew play
for real inside casinos or meet with me to discuss your nonsense.
Only a couple of times have the so-called gurus and/or their
supporters like yourself had the courage to sit with me and discuss
the advantages my Play Strategies have over some textbook theory. I
kinda wonder how long you people are going to keep on telling me
that "you will eventually lose". How long will it take me to lose the
$600k I've profited with this 'ridiculous system' over the past
nearly 7 years anyway?
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Not necessary. Your statement is still false since I did not make
up this story and therefore "technically" proves you don't ALWAYS
tell the truth.
Incorrect. At the time I had no idea either way if you were telling
the truth....and I still don't. So either way you could say I was
wrong.
Before making your stupid assertions you should realize my example
was not all that unusual. In the game this person was playing,
OEJs,
the correct play often is to hold SF2 when you have nothing else to
hold. However, they should not have held it in this case because of
the 3 gaps. I hit SF2 quite often since there's two wild cards and
every now and then it turns out to be a natural SF.
I don't know what OEJ's is. And I have no interest in SF's on FPDW.
They pay nothing. Only on TBP+ is the SF worth something useful in
order to go after when there's no Ace involved in SF3.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
hours of gambling if they read what's presented on vpfree.
What's presented on vpfree (aside from the superior database) is
exactly what everyone who agrees with each other on expert-play wants
to hear over and over again. From how to save 50c at a buffet here to
where double royals are next week to where the 'playable' nickel
games are to the long waits in-between Jean Scott's "Look at
Me!" "Look at Me" "I Won!" "I Won!" just so people will automatically
forget about how much she could have and must have lost playing her
not-so-frugal higher limit games in the meantime. It's almost like
everyone needs that 'boost' of confidence to play when they do play,
and they WANT it to be that JS is a winning icon while refusing to
see any other side of this 3-dollar-bill video poker show, so they
get it there--regardless of how hopeless long-term strategy and
chasing all those promotions really is anyway--unless, of course,
they experience good luck.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Actually, they should understand this BEFORE their thousands of
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Actually, using your own twisted logic you can't say your chances
are 1-5 either. Let's see if you can understand because
it's "Sooooo
> easy."
> 1) First, just about all new machines from IGT keep shuffling the
> remaining 47 cards until you press draw. You really do have a 1-
47
> chance. However, if you want to limit your dicussion to older
> machines that's fine too, because ...That's not correct. If you get you 'all new machines' information
from someone with more knowledge than my acquantaince who is a
software design engineer up there, please let me know. If it's from
one of the hacks on vpfree or elsewhere who say something only
because they WANT it to be like that in order to create a feel-good
position of some sort for themselves, then you'll believe anything
they say. The shuffle stops immediately after the 10 cards are
dealt,
and it has been like that for years now. There has been initial
planning to change that, but there is internal disagreement as to
why
or whether that is necessary or not.
And we should believe you just because you say it? I don't think so.
>
> 2) I believe you base your 1 in 5 premise on the way these older
> machines operated. You are dealt 10 cards when deal is pressed
and
> five of them are displayed. The others are kept hidden until you
> press draw and then, in the RF4 case, the top card of those five
is
> selected. Your twisted logic discounts the 42 cards that were not
> originally selected even though you have no idea which cards were
> selected. However, like I said before the order of the hidden 5
cards was also selected ON THE ORIGINAL DEAL. So, if your going to
discount the 42 cards not selected you MUST also discount the 4
cards
not in the first position. It's your own stupid logic. Therefore,
using your logic consistently yields a 1 in 1 chance.That's weak. You're putting together a scenario that works one way
and then say it doesn't. I said you have a 1 in 5 chance, and
that's
what you really have if the winning card is lucky enough to be
included within the 5. There's no reasoning associated with that
which allows 'discounting' the 4 position cards. Don't twist it any
more--keep it reasonable.
The logic to discount the other 4 cards is the EXACT same logic you
used to discount the other 42 cards. It's your stupid logic to begin
with. The only thing "weak" in this discussion is your completely
twisted thinking.
> Another problem with your logic (as if one were needed) is that
you
> don't know anything about the 5 cards that were selected (or
their
> positions). This is essentially USELESS information. You cannot
make any decisions based on useless information. You can only make
> decisions on the information you DO have. What is that
information?
> You started with a 52 card deck and 5 cards have been shown. One
of
> the other 47 cards that completes the RF MAY be in the first
> position. Each one of those 47 cards had an EQUAL chance of being
in that first position when deal was pressed. Hence, you have a 1
in
47 chance of getting the RF.
When you come to grips that luck accounts for over 90% of the
reason
why one wins or loses at vp, you'll see what I mean. Right now you
wear the blinders.
Once again you try to change the subject when confronted with logic.
It won't work. If you can't present a reasonable argument to support
your point then just admit your wrong or, even better, go away.
Positions don't matter when you're wondering what
chance you have to hit that royal. If you're lucky enough to get
that
5th card into those 5, then you'll hope it's next--just as in any
draw.
It is completely analygous to say the 5 cards that you love to refer
to are simply first 5 positions on the top of the deck after the
deal, and since you just said "Positions don't matter" you just
contradicted yourself (one more time).
>
> The very last time I was dealt RF4 I hit the RF. That is 1 out of
1. I guess that makes my 1 in 47 logic "more fun" than your 1 in 5
> logic.Yeah, I missed my last 3, but yours was probably on quarters.
Actually, it was on .50. Once again you're wrong. Have you ever been
right???
>
> The analogy make sense when you're claiming a progressive system
> somehow turns a losing game into a winning game. Actually, you
should have taken my challenge. You had a pretty good chance of
coming out ahead because a progressive system in roulette will
generate a high percentage of small wins just like your progressive
system does in VP. And, just like in VP, it does not change the
odds
of the game so you will lose eventually.
Again, more sit-at-home theory. You guys are good at that
No "guys" here, just me.
, because it
allows you to hide behind your machines and not have to eithew play
for real inside casinos or meet with me to discuss your nonsense.
Why would anyone want to waste their time, when, on the internet, you
refuse to hold an intelligent dicussion?
Only a couple of times have the so-called gurus and/or their
supporters like yourself had the courage to sit with me and discuss
the advantages my Play Strategies have over some textbook theory. I
kinda wonder how long you people are going to keep on telling me
that "you will eventually lose". How long will it take me to lose
the
$600k I've profited with this 'ridiculous system' over the past
nearly 7 years anyway?
Even though it may be true, why would anyone ever believe you. You
have shown absolutely no integrity in internet discussions. By the
way I know lot's of people that have made money gambling WITHOUT
correct play OR using a progressive system. These people are simply
fortunate enough to have existed on the plus side of the bell curve
(so far).
As for the 7 years, you have previously indicated you lost heavily
your first several years of gambling. Clearly, your OVERALL results
could easily fit within expected variation and have ABSOLUTELY
nothing to do with your system.
But then admitting that would blow your self-proclaimed status as a
VP guru. So, instead you continue to live in your own little world
where you feed your ego off of the uninformed. You are essentially
the equivalent of a cult leader and show all the required personality
traits.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Not necessary. Your statement is still false since I did not make
up this story and therefore "technically" proves you don't ALWAYS
tell the truth.Incorrect. At the time I had no idea either way if you were telling
the truth....and I still don't. So either way you could say I was
wrong.
Are you really this dense. When you use a term like ALWAYS then any
example to the contrary PROVES you are wrong. If this simple logic
evades you it's no wonder you make so many stupid claims.
>
> Before making your stupid assertions you should realize my
example
> was not all that unusual. In the game this person was playing,
OEJs,
> the correct play often is to hold SF2 when you have nothing else
to
> hold. However, they should not have held it in this case because
of
> the 3 gaps. I hit SF2 quite often since there's two wild cards
and
> every now and then it turns out to be a natural SF.
I don't know what OEJ's is.
What, Rob admits he doesn't know something? You should try this more
often.
OEJ is the accepted abbr. for One-eyed Jacks Wild, an IGT game.
And I have no interest in SF's on FPDW.
They pay nothing.
Only on TBP+ is the SF worth something useful in
order to go after when there's no Ace involved in SF3.
Well, in OEJs a SF pays 50:1 just like in most non-wild card games.
However, there are around 12-13 times more combinations that yield a
SF. It accounts for 10% of the overall payback and therefore is MORE
important than your beloved Aces in Double Bonus. So, once again
you've made an invalid assertion based on incomplete knowledge.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Actually, they should understand this BEFORE their thousands of
hours of gambling if they read what's presented on vpfree.What's presented on vpfree (aside from the superior database) is
exactly what everyone who agrees with each other on expert-play
wants
to hear over and over again. From how to save 50c at a buffet here
to
where double royals are next week to where the 'playable' nickel
games are to the long waits in-between Jean Scott's "Look at
Me!" "Look at Me" "I Won!" "I Won!" just so people will
automatically
forget about how much she could have and must have lost playing her
not-so-frugal higher limit games in the meantime. It's almost like
everyone needs that 'boost' of confidence to play when they do
play,
and they WANT it to be that JS is a winning icon while refusing to
see any other side of this 3-dollar-bill video poker show, so they
get it there--regardless of how hopeless long-term strategy and
chasing all those promotions really is anyway--unless, of course,
they experience good luck.
Another typical RS rant. No facts, no supporting evidence, no
integrity in his references to others. What a loser.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: