vpFREE2 Forums

Fw: Video Poker in Texas?

#61

And, you forgot to include other assumptions that the would bolster
your premise further: For instance, what if a recently deceased
multi-billionaire stated in his will that all of his money would go

to

charity, unless the person playing DB in your example at Monte
Lago holds only the A from a holding of A 3 4 of spades on the
precise hand in your example. In which event, the person in your
example inherits the money. LOL.

> Have a good day.

And you too.

vpFREE Administrator

Thanks for illustrating an example of what I believe is an absurd
position. Let us modify your example a little and say that the uncle
has already paid the eyes in the sky to monitor the inheritor and the
minute this person holds A 3 4 he is to lose the inheritance. I
believe it would be wrong in your example of the cards in 10/7 DB to
hold A 3 4 since just holding the A gets you multi billions. An
absurd VP player would say that the "right strategy" gives him an
advantage in the long term and that he will pass committing that
violation of optimum strategy by just holding the A. He will figure -
and he would be right mathematically in the long term that does not
necessarily have to be infinite, but certainly very long- that in the
long term he will be better off holding A 3 4. A sufficiently long
term will yield those multi billions playing that positive machine.
Reading VP message boards such as vpFREE sometimes gives me the
impression that the absurd behavior analogous to that of the previous
sentence is encouraged, and anything against it is censored.

May we all have understanding uncles or, better yet, may we all not
have uncles who want to borrow money, LOL.

E

···

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

#62

And we should believe you just because you say it? I don't think so.

Well then be my guest and ask one of the hacks where they get their
information from. Then you can argue it within yourself because I
trust my source to be truthful.

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.

Forget it. I know my opinion on this isn't mainstream, but the reason
I know it's logical is for the same reason why I know my critics over
my Play Strategies are wrong: Because I win more than anyone else and
more often than anyone else....and I have a lot more fun doing it.
Even you can understand systemic reasoning of events.

  
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.

Don't re-arrange the discussion because you are afraid to say you
don't understand it. Do you know how that makes "Mr. Logic" look?

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,

What part of that don't you understand? They are.

and since you just said "Positions don't matter" you just
contradicted yourself (one more time).

I believe you're having more triouble writing down what you mean.
Positions don't matter until the cards are dealt.

> >
Actually, it was on .50. Once again you're wrong. Have you ever

been right???

Same difference to me. A 50c royal is no big whoop to me. No do you
get it???

No "guys" here, just me.

Well, after some prancing thru the other boards where you get your
confidence building from, it's just you now.

Why would anyone want to waste their time, when, on the internet,

you refuse to hold an intelligent dicussion?

If that's how you feel, you tell me.

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).

So how long does your book say that I should stay on the 'plus side
of the Bell curve'?

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.

So you're trying to manipulate the facts again. 7 years of expert
play equals -$250k. 7 years of playing newly developed play
strategies equals +$600k. You're contracdicting yourself with your
desire to see long-term strategy work. You've already said
progressions in denominations and volatilities don't work, and
playing less-than-perfect-strategy on lower than 100% machines (which
are really the only machines that I play) will never create a winner.

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.

The only people I lead if I'm a cult leader is the math people. They
now have some direction in life and may even enjoy it.

···

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

#63

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.

"Always' is spoken by humans as meaning there's a strong possibility.
Of course, your math books say otherwise--it's part of that dry
personality trait that geeks all have. They're at their best when
they talk to themselves.

OEJ is the accepted abbr. for One-eyed Jacks Wild, an IGT game.

Accepted amongst whom? Another wild card game that ropes in the
optimal play crowd....

important than your beloved Aces in Double Bonus. So, once again
you've made an invalid assertion based on incomplete knowledge.

Since I know nothing about that game and I don't think it was around
when i developed my initial play strategy, I'll take your word for
it. But I will check.

···

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

#64

> 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.

The facts are written on the board all the time--just as anyone
without blinders can see JS uses vpfree and others as a springboard
for the sale of all that junk she peddles.

···

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

#65

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

wrote:

> 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.

"Always' is spoken by humans as meaning there's a strong

possibility.

No, I think most "humans" use the term GENERALLY (or possibly ALMOST
ALWAYS) to mean a strong possiblity.

Of course, your math books say otherwise--it's part of that dry
personality trait that geeks all have. They're at their best when
they talk to themselves.

Once again RS reverts to name calling when shown to be wrong.
Conveying what you mean is an admirable trait for anyone. You should
try it sometime.

> OEJ is the accepted abbr. for One-eyed Jacks Wild, an IGT game.

Accepted amongst whom? Another wild card game that ropes in the
optimal play crowd....

Whatever. You always revert back to same stupid remarks.

>
> important than your beloved Aces in Double Bonus. So, once again
> you've made an invalid assertion based on incomplete knowledge.

Since I know nothing about that game and I don't think it was

around

when i developed my initial play strategy, I'll take your word for
it. But I will check.

Check this out. The OEJs game I play has "copyright 1992" all over
the machine.

I believe the game was developed originally for the Grand Casino
franchise (just like Aces and Faces). Only recently has it become
generally available (and usually with short paytables which you
should love).

Dick

···

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

#66

...in referring to the vpfree bboard RS states:

The facts are written on the board all the time ...

Glad to see you finally admit that the facts are presented vpfree.

Dick

#67

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

wrote:

> And we should believe you just because you say it? I don't think

so.

Well then be my guest and ask one of the hacks where they get their
information from. Then you can argue it within yourself because I
trust my source to be truthful.

All my sources are also second hand and have no reason to lie since
it really doesn't change the game in any useful way.

> 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.

Forget it. I know my opinion on this isn't mainstream, but the

reason

I know it's logical is for the same reason why I know my critics

over

my Play Strategies are wrong: Because I win more than anyone else

and

more often than anyone else....and I have a lot more fun doing it.
Even you can understand systemic reasoning of events.

Using this wonderful bit of logic, "I know I'm right because I win",
the latest Lottery winner could make make the following statements.

I won because I clean houses for a living.
I won because I went to church.
I won because I'm a woman.
Etc., etc.

Won't you ever learn. Short term wins are not proof of anything.

Don't re-arrange the discussion because you are afraid to say you
don't understand it. Do you know how that makes "Mr. Logic" look?

I didn't change it, you did.

>
> 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,

What part of that don't you understand? They are.

and since you just said "Positions don't matter" you just
contradicted yourself (one more time).

I believe you're having more triouble writing down what you mean.

No, I quoted your exact statement. Previously you indicated there is
a 1 in 5 chance, this means position DOES matter since this requires
you discount the lower 42 positions. Then you said "Positions don't
matter". You can't have it both ways.

Positions don't matter until the cards are dealt.

On that we completely agree. Any other brilliant gems to pass on?
Like, "the game's not over 'till it's over", oh, wait, that's already
been used.

> > >
> Actually, it was on .50. Once again you're wrong. Have you ever
been right???

Same difference to me. A 50c royal is no big whoop to me. No do you
get it???

Your ego is showing again. Simply because someone plays higher denoms
does not make them better, smarter or a competent debater as you have
proven over and over. If whales always won the casinos wouldn't go to
the extremes they do to attract them.

>
> No "guys" here, just me.

Well, after some prancing thru the other boards where you get your
confidence building from, it's just you now.
>
> Why would anyone want to waste their time, when, on the internet,
you refuse to hold an intelligent dicussion?

If that's how you feel, you tell me.

You missed another one. Go back and reread and maybe you'll
understand.

>
> 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).

So how long does your book say that I should stay on the 'plus side
of the Bell curve'?

No book required. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of
probabilities and the size of the statistical sample (hands in this
case).

>
> 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.

So you're trying to manipulate the facts again. 7 years of expert
play equals -$250k. 7 years of playing newly developed play
strategies equals +$600k. You're contracdicting yourself with your
desire to see long-term strategy work. You've already said
progressions in denominations and volatilities don't work, and
playing less-than-perfect-strategy on lower than 100% machines

(which

are really the only machines that I play) will never create a

winner.

Wrong again, I would never use the term "never" in this context. If
you ever spent any time understanding statistical analysis techniques
you would understand terms like never and always have no meaning.

>
> 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.

The only people I lead if I'm a cult leader is the math people.

They

now have some direction in life and may even enjoy it.

What a stupid statement. But, then why would I expect anything
else ...

Dick

···

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

#68

Your reference to vpFREE is gratuitous, misleading and inaccurate.
Discussion of new "things", ideas etc. are, and always have been
welcome on vpFREE. OTOH, vpFREE doesn't cater to and is not
amused by trolls.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 18 Jul 2004 at 13:40, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

... 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".

#69

I guess I really don't know what a troll is. In my dictionary it says
that a troll is a legendary Scandinavian creature that lives in
caves. I wish I was that.

E

> ... 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

···

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

On 18 Jul 2004 at 13:40, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:
> thing to win on positive games".

Your reference to vpFREE is gratuitous, misleading and inaccurate.
Discussion of new "things", ideas etc. are, and always have been
welcome on vpFREE. OTOH, vpFREE doesn't cater to and is not
amused by trolls.

vpFREE Administrator

#70

No, I think most "humans" use the term GENERALLY (or possibly

ALMOST ALWAYS) to mean a strong possiblity.

That's because it appears you hang out with a different bunch of
humans than I do.

Once again RS reverts to name calling when shown to be wrong.
Conveying what you mean is an admirable trait for anyone. You

should try it sometime.

I thought people who are controlled by the math LIKE the word GEEK!

Check this out. The OEJs game I play has "copyright 1992" all over
the machine.

And you likely know what temperature it operates optimally at, along
with how many scratches it has on the upper half too.

···

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

#71

I think you mean are presented 'on' vpfree? Maybe you need a session
with the Queen.

···

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

...in referring to the vpfree bboard RS states:
The facts are written on the board all the time ...
Glad to see you finally admit that the facts are presented vpfree.

#72

All my sources are also second hand and have no reason to lie since
it really doesn't change the game in any useful way.

I didn't know you used sources. After all your responses I thought
you wanted us to believe you knew it all. What's up with that?

Won't you ever learn. Short term wins are not proof of anything.

Not to you, because you're so insanely jealous of my success using an
alternate short-term strategy that you'll never admit to believing in
anything other than what your precious math books say.
  

> Same difference to me. A 50c royal is no big whoop to me. No do

you get it???

Your ego is showing again. Simply because someone plays higher

denoms does not make them better, smarter or a competent debater as
you have proven over and over. If whales always won the casinos
wouldn't go to the extremes they do to attract them.

When you progress it does. And I believe I spot your jealousy one
more time.

No book required. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of
probabilities and the size of the statistical sample (hands in this
case).

How about clarifying that? Come on now....be specific.

Wrong again, I would never use the term "never" in this context. If
you ever spent any time understanding statistical analysis

techniques you would understand terms like never and always have no
meaning.

So who cares about "statistical analysis techniques"? How boring, and
how useless to any winning video poker player.

···

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

#73

Thanks for illustrating an example of what I believe is an absurd
position.

We're in agreement then. It is absurd. As are most/many of
your contrived assumptions.

Let us modify your example a little and say that the uncle
has already paid the eyes in the sky to monitor the inheritor and the
minute this person holds A 3 4 he is to lose the inheritance. I
believe it would be wrong in your example of the cards in 10/7 DB to
hold A 3 4 since just holding the A gets you multi billions.

You haven't modified my example, other than making the
deceased an uncle. And, I agree with your conclusion to
hold the single A, which is and was intended by me to be
the obvious choice.

An absurd VP player would say that the "right strategy" gives him an
advantage in the long term and that he will pass committing that
violation of optimum strategy by just holding the A. He will figure -
and he would be right mathematically in the long term that does not
necessarily have to be infinite, but certainly very long- that in the
long term he will be better off holding A 3 4. A sufficiently long
term will yield those multi billions playing that positive machine.

Now you're being absurd again.

Reading VP message boards such as vpFREE sometimes gives me the
impression that the absurd behavior analogous to that of the previous
sentence is encouraged, and anything against it is censored.

Then you apparently have reading comprehension problems,
or more likely you are being intellectually dishonest by saying
things you don't mean or believe when they suit your purpose.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 18 Jul 2004 at 15:27, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

#74

RS has shown once again that the intellect of a small child. No sense
replying to anything scratched out below since his responses are
completely content free.

Dick

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

wrote:

> No, I think most "humans" use the term GENERALLY (or possibly
ALMOST ALWAYS) to mean a strong possiblity.

That's because it appears you hang out with a different bunch of
humans than I do.

> Once again RS reverts to name calling when shown to be wrong.
> Conveying what you mean is an admirable trait for anyone. You
should try it sometime.

I thought people who are controlled by the math LIKE the word GEEK!

> Check this out. The OEJs game I play has "copyright 1992" all

over

> the machine.

And you likely know what temperature it operates optimally at,

along

···

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

with how many scratches it has on the upper half too.

#75

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

wrote:

>
> All my sources are also second hand and have no reason to lie

since

> it really doesn't change the game in any useful way.

I didn't know you used sources. After all your responses I thought
you wanted us to believe you knew it all. What's up with that?

You thought wrong once again. Since I don't work at IGT the only
possible way to get information is through sources. I hope that isn't
too tough for you to understand.

>
> Won't you ever learn. Short term wins are not proof of anything.
>
Not to you, because you're so insanely jealous of my success using

an

alternate short-term strategy that you'll never admit to believing

in

anything other than what your precious math books say.
  
Since I really don't believe your truthful about your successes how
could I ever be jealous. One more attempt on your part at obfuscation.

Rob, math books simply provide a way of describing real world events.
If you claim math books are wrong you might as well be saying the
earth is flat. It is complete nonsense on your part. If you have a
system that will generate wins for everyone that uses it over years
and years of application then you should be able to describe it with
mathematics. Otherwise you're just a liar and a fraud.

> > Same difference to me. A 50c royal is no big whoop to me. No do
you get it???
>
> Your ego is showing again. Simply because someone plays higher
denoms does not make them better, smarter or a competent debater as
you have proven over and over. If whales always won the casinos
wouldn't go to the extremes they do to attract them.

When you progress it does. And I believe I spot your jealousy one
more time.

Then your "spotter" needs adjustment. You are attempting, One More
Time, to obfuscate.

>
> No book required. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of
> probabilities and the size of the statistical sample (hands in

this

> case).

How about clarifying that? Come on now....be specific.

Rob, every time I start to get into the math you start calling me
names (math geek sound familar), changing the subject or obfuscating
the discussion. Now, you want me to be specific. What a joke. I'd be
more than happy to be specific if I thought for one milli-second that
you'd attempt to understand the point.

If your memory is too short go back to the thread in May where I
started to get specific and reread your responses.

>
> Wrong again, I would never use the term "never" in this context.

If

> you ever spent any time understanding statistical analysis
techniques you would understand terms like never and always have no
meaning.

So who cares about "statistical analysis techniques"? How boring,

and

how useless to any winning video poker player.

Just above you said you wanted me to be specific and the VERY NEXT
reply is "who cares". Now tell me why you asked me to be specific
above? This really demonstrates you have no ability to think clearly.
As if any more evidence was required.

Since we all know Rob Singer isn't your real name I suggest you
change it to more closely match you personna. How about Mr. Flat
Earth?

Dick

···

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

#76

Like I said, you seem to hang out with a different bunch of humans
than I do. But take that slide rule out of your back pocket and those
10 pens and pencils out of your shirt pocket, and you might just get
some normal input.

RS has shown once again that the intellect of a small child. No

sense

replying to anything scratched out below since his responses are
completely content free.

Dick

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > No, I think most "humans" use the term GENERALLY (or possibly
> ALMOST ALWAYS) to mean a strong possiblity.
>
> That's because it appears you hang out with a different bunch of
> humans than I do.
>
> > Once again RS reverts to name calling when shown to be wrong.
> > Conveying what you mean is an admirable trait for anyone. You
> should try it sometime.
>
> I thought people who are controlled by the math LIKE the word

GEEK!

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
>
> > Check this out. The OEJs game I play has "copyright 1992" all
over
> > the machine.
>
> And you likely know what temperature it operates optimally at,
along
> with how many scratches it has on the upper half too.

#77

You thought wrong once again. Since I don't work at IGT the only
possible way to get information is through sources. I hope that

isn't too tough for you to understand.

With you one must think a bit. Your responses are irrational,
somewhat vague, misleading, and appear at times to be filtered
through some broken down robot.

> Since I really don't believe your truthful about your successes
how could I ever be jealous. One more attempt on your part at
obfuscation.

I suppose proof is out of the question, because that will make your
one-track mind run into 'tilt'. Plus it might cost some, and how
could you afford THAT with the strategy you play?

Rob, math books simply provide a way of describing real world

events. If you claim math books are wrong you might as well be saying
the earth is flat. It is complete nonsense on your part. If you have
a system that will generate wins for everyone that uses it over years

and years of application then you should be able to describe it

with mathematics. Otherwise you're just a liar and a fraud.

Math books are there for reference and assistance. They don't take
the place of human beings and never will. That's why we run them and
they don't run us....and never will. And that's why we are able to
generate thought that far outdistance math processes without
limitations. You, however, are stuck in the math-book warp. "If it
ain't in the book then it can't be so".

Rob, every time I start to get into the math you start calling me
names (math geek sound familar)

That can't POSSIBLY be offensive to you!

, changing the subject or obfuscating the discussion. Now, you want
me to be specific. What a joke. I'd be more than happy to be specific
if I thought for one milli-second that you'd attempt to understand
the point.

The point is, you have no ability, nor idea, of how to illuminate a
discussion without stating math this or math that. To people, video
poker is a game and it is gambling. It is simple math to casinos. I
understand and accept that, and it is why I am very successful with
it. When will you realize that there IS another level to which you
jusat haven't reached yet.

If your memory is too short go back to the thread in May where I
started to get specific and reread your responses.

Just above you said you wanted me to be specific and the VERY NEXT
reply is "who cares".

As I said, you have no idea how to be specific without slide rule in-
hand. And that is very sad.

···

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

#78

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

wrote:

> You thought wrong once again. Since I don't work at IGT the only
> possible way to get information is through sources. I hope that
isn't too tough for you to understand.

With you one must think a bit.

Good, I'm glad you're finally attempting to use that object that sits
above your shoulders. Maybe I can get some intelligent responses out
of you in the future.

Your responses are irrational,
somewhat vague, misleading, and appear at times to be filtered
through some broken down robot.

Once again you attempt to obfuscate. You use words like "irrational"
and then provide nothing to support that statement. Absolutely no
content in this response.

>
> Since I really don't believe your truthful about your successes
how could I ever be jealous. One more attempt on your part at
obfuscation.

I suppose proof is out of the question, because that will make your
one-track mind run into 'tilt'. Plus it might cost some, and how
could you afford THAT with the strategy you play?

No problem. I can afford it. And, since you'd never even heard of the
game I play a few days ago how could you ever know anything about the
strategy I play? Of course, you don't, but you'd say anything to
avoid discussing your own idiotic ideas. I see you dropped the "1 in
5" discussion. I guess you finally accepted the error of your ways
but aren't man enough to admit it.

>
> Rob, math books simply provide a way of describing real world
events. If you claim math books are wrong you might as well be

saying

the earth is flat. It is complete nonsense on your part. If you

have

a system that will generate wins for everyone that uses it over

years

> and years of application then you should be able to describe it
with mathematics. Otherwise you're just a liar and a fraud.

Math books are there for reference and assistance. They don't take
the place of human beings and never will. That's why we run them

and

they don't run us....and never will.

A math book doesn't run anything. What an absolutely ridiculous
statement. Math books DESCRIBE the basics behind how things work,
including humans. And, yes, they were invented by humans so we could
understand the world around us better.

And that's why we are able to
generate thought that far outdistance math processes without
limitations.

We are? Prove it! Before going off the deep end again you should look
into some of the advances of artifical neural networks. If you want
more evidence you need go no further than a casino and the face
recognition technology they are now using.

But, if you want to get into a mind vs. brain discussion that's fine
with me. However, it really doesn't apply to how VP operates unless
you start claiming psychic powers.

The math behind VP is very simple and as I mentioned earlier in this
thread uses the same math properties used by ALL the fortune 500
companies. Your content free words have no meaning. You just throw
out generalizations and provide nothing to back them up.

You, however, are stuck in the math-book warp. "If it
ain't in the book then it can't be so".

Nope, I don't believe that we are even close to understanding our
universe. However, I do believe that you need to have a sound
mathematical basis for any hypothesis before accepting it. In some
cases that may mean extending our math models. Interestingly, over
the last couple of millenia the basic math models have remained
constant (like 1+1=2). Your progressive system violates even these
simple constructs.

>
> Rob, every time I start to get into the math you start calling me
> names (math geek sound familar)

That can't POSSIBLY be offensive to you!

Not really, but obviously you think it should be offensive or you
wouldn't keep using it. I guess your small mind has trouble coming up
with anything new.

The point is, you have no ability, nor idea, of how to illuminate a
discussion without stating math this or math that.

Kind of gets to you when you have no clue how to intelligently
respond, doesn't it? So, instead you once again provide no content.
The problem is you claim that people will win with your system. They
won't and you've shown over and over again that you can't provide any
supporting evidence. That makes you a liar and a fraud.

To people, video
poker is a game and it is gambling. It is simple math to casinos. I
understand and accept that, and it is why I am very successful with
it. When will you realize that there IS another level to which you
jusat haven't reached yet.

And which you can't explain from your lofty "level". But then you
already know that and that is why you continually revert to name
calling and obfuscation.

>
> If your memory is too short go back to the thread in May where I
> started to get specific and reread your responses.
>
> Just above you said you wanted me to be specific and the VERY

NEXT

> reply is "who cares".

As I said, you have no idea how to be specific without slide rule

in-

hand. And that is very sad.

A slide rule is not required, as I stated back in May, but when I
started to simplify it for you reverted to name calling and
obfuscation. And that's what's really sad.

Dick

···

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

#79

Mr. Flat Earth, you have once again shown your proclivity for content
free posts. Come on, give another one of your idiotic ideas like
the "1 in 5 chance".

Dick

Like I said, you seem to hang out with a different bunch of humans
than I do. But take that slide rule out of your back pocket and

those

10 pens and pencils out of your shirt pocket, and you might just

get

some normal input.

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

wrote:

> RS has shown once again that the intellect of a small child. No
sense
> replying to anything scratched out below since his responses are
> completely content free.
>
> Dick
>
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
> wrote:
> > > No, I think most "humans" use the term GENERALLY (or possibly
> > ALMOST ALWAYS) to mean a strong possiblity.
> >
> > That's because it appears you hang out with a different bunch

of

···

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

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> > humans than I do.
> >
> > > Once again RS reverts to name calling when shown to be wrong.
> > > Conveying what you mean is an admirable trait for anyone. You
> > should try it sometime.
> >
> > I thought people who are controlled by the math LIKE the word
GEEK!
> >
> > > Check this out. The OEJs game I play has "copyright 1992" all
> over
> > > the machine.
> >
> > And you likely know what temperature it operates optimally at,
> along
> > with how many scratches it has on the upper half too.

#80

Good, I'm glad you're finally attempting to use that object that

sits above your shoulders.

That's good from this end also, because I see I'm getting into yours
more than you might know!

Once again you attempt to obfuscate. You use words

like "irrational" and then provide nothing to support that statement.

No further support is required. Your typing does that for us.

No problem. I can afford it.

You live the quarter & 50c dream of wishing it were higher,
Sure.....you can afford it.

And, since you'd never even heard of the game I play a few days ago
how could you ever know anything about the strategy I play? Of
course, you don't, but you'd say anything to

avoid discussing your own idiotic ideas. I see you dropped the "1

in 5" discussion. I guess you finally accepted the error of your ways

but aren't man enough to admit it.

Your "strategy" if you can call it that, is to play every hand as if
a non-human were at the machine. Tons of fun. Tons of points. But
where's the $$$$??

A math book doesn't run anything.

They certainly do. they run you!

We are? Prove it! Before going off the deep end again you should

look into some of the advances of artifical neural networks. If you
want more evidence you need go no further than a casino and the face
recognition technology they are now using.

You mean, the technology a HUMAN developed?

Nope, I don't believe that we are even close to understanding our
universe. However, I do believe that you need to have a sound
mathematical basis for any hypothesis before accepting it. In some
cases that may mean extending our math models. Interestingly, over
the last couple of millenia the basic math models have remained
constant (like 1+1=2). Your progressive system violates even these
simple constructs.

Yup. And it has spelled unequalled success.

Not really, but obviously you think it should be offensive or you
wouldn't keep using it. I guess your small mind has trouble coming

up with anything new.

Not really? then why bring it up? I feel like I'm watching my
grandparents argue whenever you reply.

Kind of gets to you when you have no clue how to intelligently
respond, doesn't it? So, instead you once again provide no content.
The problem is you claim that people will win with your system.

They won't and you've shown over and over again that you can't
provide any supporting evidence. That makes you a liar and a fraud.

Oops! You got caught calling me names again!! But I don't care if
anyone wins with my strategy or not--only me, and it was developed
only FOR me. I have a much stronger will than any other vp player
I've heard or read about ever, I probably have a much better gambling
bankroll, I have the total background, I have the perfect at-home
circumstances, I have far more common sense than any math geek, plus
I'm a bit more intelligent than most of them....and unlike 99% of
players, I keep fit and stay healthy. Without this total combination
(which you'll claim is an ego trip) one will not beat the casinos as
I have done.

A slide rule is not required, as I stated back in May, but when I
started to simplify it for you reverted to name calling and
obfuscation. And that's what's really sad.

How about those pens and pencils?

···

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