Perhaps the definition of true addiction should be posting more than
25 times in a 2-3 day period to the same chat board!
Guys...go play some video poker, already!
kil
Fw: Video Poker in Texas?
.. snip ... I don't care if
anyone wins with my strategy or not--only me, and it was developed
only FOR me.
Then keep it to yourself, please.
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.
The ego part is obvious, however, since you bring it up, let's
discuss your intelligence. You love to pick on math. Just what is
math. Math is a collection of symbols used by humans to describe real
world ideas. For example, I have one coin and I win a second coin. I
now have two coins(1+1=2). We humans use these symbols to
communicate. But wait, color is also a collection of symbols used by
humans to describe real world ideas. We humans couldn't communicate
without symbols. In fact, everything we humans can discuss uses
symbols to represent our ideas. It turns out math is no different
than anything else. It's just a different set of symbols.
So, anyone with any intelligence can clearly see there's no way to
simply take math, pack it up and throw it away as something 'real'
humans have no use for. It just one of the many symbols we humans use
to communicate.
Now look at your own progressive system. First you start with goals,
wait a minute, a goal means equal to (=). That's a math symbol. And
then if you don't reach a goal you double your bet, wait again,
double means 2 times (2*), another math symbol. Next you should
always go for the bigger wins, oh my gosh, bigger (>), another math
symbol.
What does this mean? I guess you're really just a closet math geek
after all. So, come on Rob, come out of the closet, take that slide
rule out of your rectal orifice and prove your mathematical system
works in the real world we humans occupy. It should be easy for you
since you claim to be "a bit more intelligent" than the rest of us.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
Then keep it to yourself, please.
I am not the one who is bringing it up over and over and over again.
I mentioned one play that I make which is one of my special plays
that deviates from expert strategy and is a winner, and your math
shorts give you wedgies.
>
The ego part is obvious, however, since you bring it up, let's
discuss your intelligence. You love to pick on math. Just what is
math. Math is a collection of symbols used by humans to describe
real world ideas. For example, I have one coin and I win a second
coin. I now have two coins(1+1=2). We humans use these symbols to
communicate. But wait, color is also a collection of symbols used
by humans to describe real world ideas. We humans couldn't
communicate without symbols. In fact, everything we humans can
discuss uses symbols to represent our ideas. It turns out math is no
different than anything else. It's just a different set of symbols.
So, anyone with any intelligence can clearly see there's no way to
simply take math, pack it up and throw it away as something 'real'
humans have no use for. It just one of the many symbols we humans
use to communicate. Now look at your own progressive system. First
you start with goals, wait a minute, a goal means equal to (=).
That's a math symbol. And then if you don't reach a goal you double
your bet, wait again, double means 2 times (2*), another math symbol.
Next you should always go for the bigger wins, oh my gosh, bigger
(>), another math symbol.What does this mean? I guess you're really
just a closet math geek after all. So, come on Rob, come out of the
closet, take that slide rule out of your rectal orifice and prove
your mathematical system works in the real world we humans occupy. It
should be easy for you since you claim to be "a bit more intelligent"
than the rest of us.
From all that ramble, I got one more example of you're ignorance that
I double my bet when I lose. I guess you need to keep telling
yourself that's what I do in order to be able to explain it away
through some chapter in that old math book you sleep with. The "I'm a
bit more intelligent" than most math geeks is an evolution. In my
business life I used to be one like you. But when company managements
saw that I didn't ACT like the rest of them and could actually think
for myself, and that I went to the next level up with my creativeness
along with an MBA---I then became in charge of all the geeks. And
that's exactly what I'm doing right now.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> The ego part is obvious, however, since you bring it up, let's
> discuss your intelligence. You love to pick on math. Just what is
> math. Math is a collection of symbols used by humans to describe
real world ideas. For example, I have one coin and I win a second
coin. I now have two coins(1+1=2). We humans use these symbols to
> communicate. But wait, color is also a collection of symbols used
by humans to describe real world ideas. We humans couldn't
communicate without symbols. In fact, everything we humans can
discuss uses symbols to represent our ideas. It turns out math is
no
different than anything else. It's just a different set of symbols.
> So, anyone with any intelligence can clearly see there's no way
to
> simply take math, pack it up and throw it away as
something 'real'
> humans have no use for. It just one of the many symbols we humans
use to communicate. Now look at your own progressive system. First
you start with goals, wait a minute, a goal means equal to (=).
That's a math symbol. And then if you don't reach a goal you double
your bet, wait again, double means 2 times (2*), another math
symbol.
Next you should always go for the bigger wins, oh my gosh, bigger
(>), another math symbol.What does this mean? I guess you're really
just a closet math geek after all. So, come on Rob, come out of the
closet, take that slide rule out of your rectal orifice and prove
your mathematical system works in the real world we humans occupy.
It
should be easy for you since you claim to be "a bit more
intelligent"
than the rest of us.
From all that ramble, I got one more example of you're ignorance
that
I double my bet when I lose.
You don't get much of anything do you?
Are you saying you never move to a machine and double your coin-in
within your "progressive" system? If you do, then that's what's
called doubling your bet, and what I said is 100% correct. By the
way, I'm still waiting for that proof that your mathematical system
works.
I guess you need to keep telling
yourself that's what I do in order to be able to explain it away
through some chapter in that old math book you sleep with. The "I'm
a
bit more intelligent" than most math geeks is an evolution. In my
business life I used to be one like you. But when company
managements
saw that I didn't ACT like the rest of them and could actually
think
for myself, and that I went to the next level up with my
creativeness
along with an MBA---I then became in charge of all the geeks. And
that's exactly what I'm doing right now.
So, they moved you into management so you couldn't hurt things any
more? Sounds like the Peter Principle in full bloom.
I thought this might be too much for your small mind. I guess your
evolution stopped a little short. Too bad, you could have learned
something.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
Are you saying you never move to a machine and double your coin-in
within your "progressive" system? If you do, then that's what's
called doubling your bet, and what I said is 100% correct. By the
way, I'm still waiting for that proof that your mathematical system
works.
Never.
So, they moved you into management so you couldn't hurt things any
more? Sounds like the Peter Principle in full bloom.
That's what I'd expect a lower level mgmt. or blue collar worker to
say. No sense to it, just geek-talk.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Perhaps the definition of true addiction should be posting more
than 25 times in a 2-3 day period to the same chat board!
Guys...go play some video poker, already!
Dick may indeed be going to play some video poker--just like all
nerds carrying yellow slide rules do all the time. Wasn't that the
opening scene in "Revenge Of The Girly Men" (or whatever it's
called)? I don't see how he can let all those hands just pass him by
in his quest for the 'long-run' anyway. Of course, he can just sit at
home and play 50,000 hands a week on his beloved Winpoker too. I've
always wondered what the difference was between doing that, and
playing in casinos--to the long-term crowd. Maybe he can get his no-
royal streak out of the way? Anyway, that's a problem best left up
for Dan Paymar's next book on theorems.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kilroydq2" <kilroydq@p...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> I'm still waiting for that proof that your mathematical system
> works.Never.
That's becuase no proof exists or could ever exist.
>
> So, they moved you into management so you couldn't hurt things
any
> more? Sounds like the Peter Principle in full bloom.
That's what I'd expect a lower level mgmt. or blue collar worker to
say. No sense to it, just geek-talk.
Nope, none of the above. I see you're reverting to your typical
responses when you have nothing intelligent to say.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kilroydq2" <kilroydq@p...>
wrote:
> Perhaps the definition of true addiction should be posting more
than 25 times in a 2-3 day period to the same chat board!
> Guys...go play some video poker, already!Dick may indeed be going to play some video poker--just like all
nerds carrying yellow slide rules do all the time. Wasn't that the
opening scene in "Revenge Of The Girly Men" (or whatever it's
called)?
Hard to believe such a high class guy as you like to portray yourself
would watch something of this type. Or, could it be that everything
you say about yourself is just another lie?
I don't see how he can let all those hands just pass him by
in his quest for the 'long-run' anyway.
I'm already IN the long term. Proving that advantage play DOES work.
Maybe he can get his no-
royal streak out of the way?
What "no royal" streak? Got one on my last trip. Of course, I do have
streaks where I don't get many RFs and then I have streaks when I get
more than usual. Just like ALL gamblers who report their results
honestly.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
That's becuase no proof exists or could ever exist.
You exist in a monotonous world where everything has to be proven
with some kind of goofy math or else you can't accept it. I could
walk you from casino to casino and have the hosts SHOW you my results
with Advanced RTT Play Strategy and you still would reject it unless
presented alongside an open slide rule.
> That's what I'd expect a lower level mgmt. or blue collar worker
to say. No sense to it, just geek-talk.
Nope, none of the above. I see you're reverting to your typical
responses when you have nothing intelligent to say.
You sure portray a jealous, lower-class geek!
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> Dick may indeed be going to play some video poker--just like all
> nerds carrying yellow slide rules do all the time. Wasn't that
the opening scene in "Revenge Of The Girly Men" (or whatever it's
> called)?
Hard to believe such a high class guy as you like to portray
yourself would watch something of this type. Or, could it be that
everything you say about yourself is just another lie?
I got no class. I gots a play strategy that makes yours look like
paint drying; I gots common sense; and I gots only 2 pens in my front
pocket.
I'm already IN the long term. Proving that advantage play DOES work.
All you show is proof that geeks exist, and that they lead ultra-
boring lives.
What "no royal" streak? Got one on my last trip.
Oh, that's right. The 50-center! Gosh and geeeee-whizzzzzzzz.
Of course, I do have streaks where I don't get many RFs and then I
have streaks when I get more than usual. Just like ALL gamblers who
report their results honestly.
You forgot to mention how very according to the mathematically
expected results that is. Remember, pie are not square. Thay are
round.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> That's becuase no proof exists or could ever exist.
>
You exist in a monotonous world where everything has to be proven
with some kind of goofy math or else you can't accept it. I could
walk you from casino to casino and have the hosts SHOW you my
results
with Advanced RTT Play Strategy and you still would reject it
unless
presented alongside an open slide rule.
Anyone who gambles has had some success. I'm sure you have as well.
That doesn't prove your strategy works. If it really works you should
be able to prove it mathematically. You can't because it simply does
not work. Period.
I see your now calling the math used by all the forture 500
companies "goofy". I guess that pretty much sums up your intellectual
capabilities.
> > That's what I'd expect a lower level mgmt. or blue collar
worker
to say. No sense to it, just geek-talk.
>
> Nope, none of the above. I see you're reverting to your typical
> responses when you have nothing intelligent to say.You sure portray a jealous, lower-class geek!
Your inferiority complex is really starting to show. I suggest you
see a shrink really soon.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
No comment needed.
Dick
> > Dick may indeed be going to play some video poker--just like
all
> > nerds carrying yellow slide rules do all the time. Wasn't that
the opening scene in "Revenge Of The Girly Men" (or whatever it's
> > called)?
>
> Hard to believe such a high class guy as you like to portray
yourself would watch something of this type. Or, could it be that
everything you say about yourself is just another lie?I got no class. I gots a play strategy that makes yours look like
paint drying; I gots common sense; and I gots only 2 pens in my
front
pocket.
>
> I'm already IN the long term. Proving that advantage play DOES
work.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
>
All you show is proof that geeks exist, and that they lead ultra-
boring lives.> What "no royal" streak? Got one on my last trip.
Oh, that's right. The 50-center! Gosh and geeeee-whizzzzzzzz.
Of course, I do have streaks where I don't get many RFs and then I
have streaks when I get more than usual. Just like ALL gamblers who
report their results honestly.You forgot to mention how very according to the mathematically
expected results that is. Remember, pie are not square. Thay are
round.
Anyone who gambles has had some success. I'm sure you have as well.
That doesn't prove your strategy works. If it really works you
should be able to prove it mathematically. You can't because it
simply does not work. Period.
Sure, I can prove it mathematically....only you won't believe it. I'm
over $600k ahead. An average of $2730/session played. 222 total
sessions. Do the math.
I see your now calling the math used by all the forture 500
companies "goofy". I guess that pretty much sums up your
intellectual capabilities.
'Goofy' remains legendary and famous. I don't recall anyone with the
name 'Math' ever making an economic mark in the world.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
I'll bet it was the pie that got you. Must have put you
into 'overload'.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
>
> Anyone who gambles has had some success. I'm sure you have as
well.
> That doesn't prove your strategy works. If it really works you
should be able to prove it mathematically. You can't because it
simply does not work. Period.Sure, I can prove it mathematically....only you won't believe it.
I'm
over $600k ahead. An average of $2730/session played. 222 total
sessions. Do the math.
And you think I believe you? Think again. Show how your SYSTEM works
mathematically. Should be easy for an MBA who thinks he's smarter
than everyone else.
>
> I see your now calling the math used by all the forture 500
> companies "goofy". I guess that pretty much sums up your
intellectual capabilities.'Goofy' remains legendary and famous. I don't recall anyone with
the
name 'Math' ever making an economic mark in the world.
Looks like you're the one getting goofy new. Changing the subject
doesn't work. Come on, show me the math.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
And you think I believe you? Think again. Show how your SYSTEM
works mathematically. Should be easy for an MBA who thinks he's
smarter than everyone else.
Like I said, I had a whole string of engineers work for me for a
number of years, simply because they had all the technical expertise
in the world that the company could ask for....but they had no
creativity in order to get to that next level for success. Whether
you believe my results or not hardly matters--you're the one with a
hair on your butt about it because you can't figure it out on a slide
rule. And am I smarter than everyone else? No, not everyone of
course, but I'm smarter than any video poker player that's come up
with or follows the other systems out there.
Looks like you're the one getting goofy new. Changing the subject
doesn't work. Come on, show me the math.
I did, only you couldn't add the numbers up. Must be there's too many
zeroes to contemplate in your video poker program.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> And you think I believe you? Think again. Show how your SYSTEM
works mathematically. Should be easy for an MBA who thinks he's
smarter than everyone else.Like I said, I had a whole string of engineers work for me for a
number of years, simply because they had all the technical
expertise
in the world that the company could ask for....but they had no
creativity in order to get to that next level for success.
Sounds to me like your imagination is running wild. So far, you have
shown no creativity in your responses. It always the same old crap. I
suspect those engineers, you're referring to, we're so much smarter
than you that you eventually gave up (or got fired) and started your
VP scam. Now you want to put them down (or anyone with a technical
background). You really should go see that shrink.
Whether
you believe my results or not hardly matters--you're the one with a
hair on your butt about it because you can't figure it out on a
slide
rule. And am I smarter than everyone else? No, not everyone of
course, but I'm smarter than any video poker player that's come up
with or follows the other systems out there.
>
> Looks like you're the one getting goofy new. Changing the subject
> doesn't work. Come on, show me the math.I did, only you couldn't add the numbers up. Must be there's too
many
zeroes to contemplate in your video poker program.
So you consider quoting some unsubstantiated numbers as a proof. No
wonder you were fired. All it shows is you have no concept of how to
show your system is valid. Typical when that system is a fraud.
Come on, show evidence that anyone can use your system and show a
profit. Individual results are no indication, otherwise, we'd all
skip VP and be big lottery winners.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
Sounds to me like your imagination is running wild. So far, you
have
shown no creativity in your responses. It always the same old
crap. I
suspect those engineers, you're referring to, we're so much
smarter
than you that you eventually gave up (or got fired) and started
your
VP scam. Now you want to put them down (or anyone with a technical
background). You really should go see that shrink.
You're crying again. I SUSPECT that it's because you were one of the
first some years ago to say I'd be gone in 60 seconds--yet I
continue on. Keep on crying in your beer.
So you consider quoting some unsubstantiated numbers as a proof.
No
wonder you were fired. All it shows is you have no concept of how
to
show your system is valid. Typical when that system is a fraud.
No, I even invited you to go to casinos with me to verify winnings.
Did you run that thru your slide rule yet? And BTW--to use your geek
math as you do with me, I see you're saying I was fired from some
job. Is that how Einsteins do their binary calculations when the get
frustrated?
rgmustain,
My aim in barging in on this dispute is to try again to be
conciliatory, and I have no other purpose in this post, none, of
course, that could be characterized by a horrible word accusing me of
devious pursuits. Now, let's see.
Sometimes disputes are fun, and I will not accuse gentlemen engaged
in them of being Kilkenny cats, or insist they read the very old
Irish ditty,
"There wanst was two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit
And they scratched and they bit
'Til instead of two cats there weren't any."
So let us leave the Kilkenny cats and let's consider what the problem
seems to be here.
Let us see. One person insists a system works, the other person
demands proof. Of course, we are all interested in playing Video
Poker and not spending countless hours toiling with Mathematical
proofs. Mathematics is notoriously difficult and problematic even for
mathematicians. The FAQs in vpFREE say at one point, and I
quote, "Traditional Video Poker Experts, who have examined Rob
Singer's methods and strategies, contend that they are mathematically
unsound, and they question the accuracy of his reported results." I'm
not familiar with the literature on the matter, but it is clearly
stated in the quoted passage that the unsoundness of the methods
discussed has not been proven mathematically, but this unsoundness is
just a mathematical contention or, to use a phrase more in vogue, a
mathematical conjecture.
Often new ingredients might make a dispute richer. For example, some
proofs of the existence or non-existence of the claimed valid systems
discussed might be useful here; or if there are no proofs, some
references where the matter is seriously considered. An Internet page
or an article where these things are discussed might be helpful. Then
the question would lead to a more careful examination of such
documents.
Fish swim without knowing the laws of hydrodynamics, birds fly
without knowing the mathematics of aerodynamics. We all gotta play
Video Poker. It is, at least, a logical possibility that someone
might win at Video Poker by some method found as a fluke, without
having worked out a mathematical proof of it. I mean, Russell and
Whitehead spent a whole thick volume of the Principia Mathematica
before they could prove, in the second volume, that the
proposition "1+1=2" is based on logic. Not everything that human
beings do with a reasonable degree of certainty has to be proven
mathematically, otherwise most activities on earth would be
paralyzed. But if you insist on mathematical proof, then Mr. Singer
could reply in all right, and logic would be on his side, with the
assertion "prove that there is no other system besides yours that
works".
I'm not taking sides, I just want to suggest you both step aside from
the "yes, no" situation and consider the "maybes".
Mybe this will bring a variation on this discussion.
E
N.B.: deadin7, the part of your posts that I find most curious is
your frequent mention of "slide rules". Those instruments were
invaluable for students of mathematics or engineering before the
sixth decade of the last century. Now they are obsolete, and have
been since the seventies. Students and professionals have been using
since then calculators or appropriate softwares in PCs. I know you
are using the 'slide rule', probably, as a rhetorical device in your
posts, but I find the reference odd, a sort of anachronism. This note
is not meant to be a criticism of your literary style, but I just
wanted to state my puzzlement in case I could be enlightened about
it.
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > And you think I believe you? Think again. Show how your SYSTEM
> works mathematically. Should be easy for an MBA who thinks he's
> smarter than everyone else.
>
> Like I said, I had a whole string of engineers work for me for a
> number of years, simply because they had all the technical
expertise
> in the world that the company could ask for....but they had no
> creativity in order to get to that next level for success.Sounds to me like your imagination is running wild. So far, you
have
shown no creativity in your responses. It always the same old crap.
I
suspect those engineers, you're referring to, we're so much smarter
than you that you eventually gave up (or got fired) and started
your
VP scam. Now you want to put them down (or anyone with a technical
background). You really should go see that shrink.> Whether
> you believe my results or not hardly matters--you're the one with
a
> hair on your butt about it because you can't figure it out on a
slide
> rule. And am I smarter than everyone else? No, not everyone of
> course, but I'm smarter than any video poker player that's come
up
> with or follows the other systems out there.
> >
> > Looks like you're the one getting goofy new. Changing the
subject
> > doesn't work. Come on, show me the math.
>
> I did, only you couldn't add the numbers up. Must be there's too
many
> zeroes to contemplate in your video poker program.So you consider quoting some unsubstantiated numbers as a proof. No
wonder you were fired. All it shows is you have no concept of how
to
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
show your system is valid. Typical when that system is a fraud.Come on, show evidence that anyone can use your system and show a
profit. Individual results are no indication, otherwise, we'd all
skip VP and be big lottery winners.Dick
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
The FAQs in vpFREE say at one point, and I
quote, "Traditional Video Poker Experts, who have examined Rob
Singer's methods and strategies, contend that they are
mathematically unsound, and they question the accuracy of his
reported results."
I suspect the author who prepared this shot from the hip was more
emotionally involved than logically. These 'traditional experts'
contend one thing and I contend another. And while 'they' have never
been challenged to prove their purported winning over the years until
I came along, 'they' fired back by immediately climbing all over me
because they neither understood the entire scope of my play strategy
nor want it to be true that I profit more than any other player.
N.B.: deadin7, the part of your posts that I find most curious is
your frequent mention of "slide rules".
You mentioned 'obsolete, and you hit the nail on the head. In this
case, it's the people as well as the instrument.