Does anyone have any idea if the Multistrike game at the Shockwave
site is set to produce more winning hands than normal? I've played
BP on it many times with phenomenal results. Before I go to a
casino and play with real money, I just wonder if I'm being misled.
After all, the site is a great advertisement for the game. Perhaps
too great.
Loose Multistrike?
misled. After all, the site is a great advertisement for the game.
Perhaps too great.
I believe all you'll get for an answer here is "they're supposed to
be random just like they're purported to be in Nevada" which means
it's a no-help answer. Your best bet is to assume the game is
not 'set' to produce more winning hands, and at the same time
consider yourself to be one of these 'advantage players' who believe
they have some type of an 'edge' over casinos on certain games. When
you find the machine & game you'd like to sit at and play in Nevada,
take the pay table percentage, then add in a little something for the
cash-back/bounce-back cash if any, toss in a few points for the comps
you will be earning, then roll in a bit for the smiles from the hosts
and VIP room employees you may encounter along the way, and if it's a
sunny day that's got to be worth another .03%. And just like 'they'
do, VIOLA, you have created yet another 'positive play' out of thin
air. But hold on a minute. You said you've had phenominal results
playing at home on the site? Uh-oh. In the math-guru world, that
means even if you put in hour after hour in the casino on the thing,
since you're already on the kick-ass side of the 'Bell Curve' you are
likely to get clobbered since they believe what goes around comes
around. After all, why shouldn't 'advantage players' throw in ALL
hands played over their lifetime--regardless where they play them?
In other words, you shouldn't play in Nevada until you lose at home.
But if you do want to win in the short-term, go to my site and read
my winning MSVP Play Strategy....For FREE. Then you can forget about
all this long-term play strategy nonsense - and have fun as well as a
great chance to beat the thing for real.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "fsj10352a" <fsj10352a@y...> wrote:
Does anyone have any idea if the Multistrike game at the Shockwave
site is set to produce more winning hands than normal? I've played
BP on it many times with phenomenal results. Before I go to a
casino and play with real money, I just wonder if I'm being
My general experience has been that at home playing not for money
one's virtual winnings are much higher than in casinos, and this
includes free Internet sites or purchased softwares. I have no
explanation for this. Yes, I also do great on Multi Strike at home,
and not so great at Multi Strike in casinos. I have read, though, of
people hitting Royals at casinos on the top line. Maybe at home I'm
often at the right machine at the right time, but at casinos not as
often, LOL.
Does anyone have any idea if the Multistrike game at the Shockwave
site is set to produce more winning hands than normal? I've played
BP on it many times with phenomenal results. Before I go to a
casino and play with real money, I just wonder if I'm being
misled.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "fsj10352a" <fsj10352a@y...> wrote:
After all, the site is a great advertisement for the game. Perhaps
too great.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
I have read, though, of people hitting Royals at casinos on the top
line. Maybe at home I'm often at the right machine at the right time,
but at casinos not as often, LOL.
A couple of weeks ago while I was in Harrah's room -- Rincon -- in
SD, I grabbed the Strictly Slots & CP magazines and just read them
yesterday. Although it's shameful and likely very embarrassing that
the publisher has degenerated into filling the publications up with
foolish Internet gambling site ads, the writing is the same old
stuff. Bob Dancer writes numerical columns that nobody reads, Jeffrey
Compton wanders through all the slot club minutia, and Skip Hughes
takes the opportunity to blab about his newfound skill "belonging to
an exclusive club" as he hit a 25c royal on the top line of a Multi-
Strike machine. I wonder why he didn't mention about the person I
advised at Rampart who hit the dollar RF on the top line and then
bought me a very expensive bottle of Scotch as a thank-you! Nope,
you'll never see the whole story when the Huntington Press crowd gets
into something, but you'll always hear 'the rest of the story' when I
get a hold of it....
Thanks for the info. In my virtual sessions, I've already been
following Rob's Multistrike strategy. I've been cashing out once I
win at least 200 credits. Out of 31 sessions, I've lost 6, but I've
won a total of 7062 credits. Each losing session has been either 785
or 795 credits (starting with 800). My winning sessions have averaged
472 credits, and all of this without a single RF. Instead, I've hit a
lot of quads, and one SF.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
I have read, though, of people hitting Royals at casinos on the top
line. Maybe at home I'm often at the right machine at the right time,
but at casinos not as often, LOL.A couple of weeks ago while I was in Harrah's room -- Rincon -- in
SD, I grabbed the Strictly Slots & CP magazines and just read them
yesterday. Although it's shameful and likely very embarrassing that
the publisher has degenerated into filling the publications up with
foolish Internet gambling site ads, the writing is the same old
stuff. Bob Dancer writes numerical columns that nobody reads, Jeffrey
Compton wanders through all the slot club minutia, and Skip Hughes
takes the opportunity to blab about his newfound skill "belonging to
an exclusive club" as he hit a 25c royal on the top line of a Multi-
Strike machine. I wonder why he didn't mention about the person I
advised at Rampart who hit the dollar RF on the top line and then
bought me a very expensive bottle of Scotch as a thank-you! Nope,
you'll never see the whole story when the Huntington Press crowd gets
into something, but you'll always hear 'the rest of the story' when I
get a hold of it....
Well, it seems you were reading at least some entertaining articles
in those magazines. You did not have to read the thick issue they
have once a year naming "The Best of..." I guess THAT issue you could
read with some humor and have a few laughs. For example, the best
hotel is invariable the Rio, the casino with the best Video Poker is
invariably Harrah's, etc., etc. I usually look up the best restaurant
to see if Roberta's at El Cortez made it, LOL.
A couple of weeks ago while I was in Harrah's room -- Rincon -- in
SD, I grabbed the Strictly Slots & CP magazines and just read them
yesterday. Although it's shameful and likely very embarrassing that
the publisher has degenerated into filling the publications up with
foolish Internet gambling site ads, the writing is the same old
stuff. Bob Dancer writes numerical columns that nobody reads,
Jeffrey
Compton wanders through all the slot club minutia, and Skip Hughes
takes the opportunity to blab about his newfound skill "belonging
to
an exclusive club" as he hit a 25c royal on the top line of a Multi-
Strike machine. I wonder why he didn't mention about the person I
advised at Rampart who hit the dollar RF on the top line and then
bought me a very expensive bottle of Scotch as a thank-you! Nope,
you'll never see the whole story when the Huntington Press crowd
gets
into something, but you'll always hear 'the rest of the story' when
I
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
Well, it seems you were reading at least some entertaining articles
in those magazines. You did not have to read the thick issue they
have once a year naming "The Best of..." I guess THAT issue you
could read with some humor and have a few laughs. For example, the
best hotel is invariable the Rio, the casino with the best Video
Poker is invariably Harrah's, etc., etc. I usually look up the best
restaurant to see if Roberta's at El Cortez made it, LOL.
Hey, it's all business to the publishers of those magazines (the
Fines)-- just like the video poker has become to my guru friends.
It's always and only about the money....OTHER people's money, and how
to best get their hands on it. Several years ago SS & CP were
denouncing Internet play. Now they gladly take advertising from them.
And even though they get criticized by their own writers for giving
Harrah's properties the highest rankings in recent years, they still
do it just because. Because of the money. They have no class and no
honor, and that's just another reason why more people come to me for
reason every day that passes.
fsj10352a wrote:
Does anyone have any idea if the Multistrike game at the Shockwave
site is set to produce more winning hands than normal? I've played
BP on it many times with phenomenal results. Before I go to a
casino and play with real money, I just wonder if I'm being misled.
After all, the site is a great advertisement for the game. Perhaps
too great.
If, based upon this experience, you expect that you'll continue to see
"phenomenal results" in the casino then, yes, you're being misled.
The Action site, videopoker.com, has Multi Strike now. Please note
the paytables, they are very good. For example, you have 10/6 Double
Double Bonus and 9/7 Triple Double Bonus. These are pay tables that
are not that prevalent and you can find in single line machines in
only a few casinos outside the Strip. You are very unlikely to find
Multi Strike machines in casinos with these pay tables.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
fsj10352a wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea if the Multistrike game at the
Shockwave
> site is set to produce more winning hands than normal? I've
played
> BP on it many times with phenomenal results. Before I go to a
> casino and play with real money, I just wonder if I'm being
misled.
> After all, the site is a great advertisement for the game.
Perhaps
> too great.
If, based upon this experience, you expect that you'll continue to
see
···
"phenomenal results" in the casino then, yes, you're being misled.
GBC--my first book publisher--sent me a msg. to read thru Bob
Dancer's column today on bankroll requirement at casinogaming.com
(Several at GBC write columns right alongside him). I was asked to
comment on what it meant to me, because they so often see where I
recommend bankroll by the trip and not by some confusing 'long-term,
overall' requirement.
I was a little surprised to see some common sense used at the
beginning of the article, but as soon as I saw Bob talk about how a
portion of his bankroll is in 'mutual funds' then it drifted further
downward & away from there. Money in mutual funds is money earmarked
for a type of living or money planned for retirement, and NEVER
should be a crutch for a gambling habit. I can't believe he would say
such a thing. This is just as stupid as Sen. Kennedy saying the
treasonous things he says with his aging, warped mind in Washington
these days.
And who's Dancer kidding anyway? His eyes popped wide open when he
saw his wife-to-be had $30k in the bank. The fact that he has turned
a non-gambler into whatever it is he now is, I believe is a terrible
tragedy. Further, he continually tells the world that in games of
importance, she only makes plays after 'checking with him'. No wonder
most gaming-related families don't last long....
Near the end of his article he tries to show a 'simplified' formula
of using a figure of 3-5 royals as a bankroll requirement. 10/7 DB is
used as an example in dollars, and of course his 'perfect play' is an
absolute requirement (as he attempts to blab to us how he is one of
the few if not only one who plays it perfectly--which of course he
does not even come close to doing and he knows it). But hold on
there! He then slips in the recommendation that, because of DB being
a 'streaky' game (what game ISN'T?) instead of $12,000-$20,000, you
just might want $25,000-$30,000. And he says, (and I quote) "$12k-
$20k probably should last you, but $25k-$30k is more like it for this
game"!! Should last you for WHAT? He doesn't know why or even what
he's trying to tell us, but I think it has something to do with how
you'll be OK by the end of your playing days if you start with $30k.
Gee what fun. Play 10/7 DB dollars perfectly on and on and on
starting with $30k, and you just might not lose it all by the time
you put a foot in the grave. Oh what fun I'll have with this one!
I still don't understand bankroll, but your closing comments make
sense. Maybe I should go to Caesars Palace one day when Seinfelf is
appearing so as to be enlightened about this matter, if he discusses
it. Now, as for playing $30,000 on one line 10/7 DB, I made a few
simulations in Frugal. I played $30,000 until it was all gone,
several sessions. On one session I had to stop the computer because
it kept playing and I was bored. At the stop, the machine had played
two million games and there were $75,450 in credits. On another
session the $30,000 were gone after 1,108,000 games. If we assume
Frugal simulations represent real results, then an individual gambler
could experience either the two simulations above. Some of the people
who play fast can play a million hands in less than a year, or so I
have read, so it is quite possible to lose $30,000 in a year in the
situation above. Someone should tell a beginner to be wary of that.
Another important point that might be useful for a beginner to know
and that I never see discussed is the fact that the bankroll of a
gambler, considered as what he is willing to lose as 'entertainment'
does invariably increase with time. I have never met a person who
frequents casinos and who plays less money after five or ten years
than at the start of his gambling career. Then, if bankroll B is a
function of time t, then B(t) is an increasing function. That might
be the best mathematical observation one can make about bankroll,
even if it sounds like an observation in the wrong field, psychology,
LOL. Anyway, good luck to all.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
Gee what fun. Play 10/7 DB dollars perfectly on and on and on
starting with $30k, and you just might not lose it all by the time
you put a foot in the grave. Oh what fun I'll have with this one!
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...>
You hit the nail on the head--Someone (like Dancer for instance)
should tell people during his sales events, buy-my-stuff classes, or
pay-for appearances that even at the high end, the money has a good
chance of disappearing before any profit is realized.
Let's see, a video poker stud who plays 1000 hands per hour would
play a million hands in 'just' 1000 hours! That's close to 3 hours a
day. Gee, how easy the gurus make it all sound. Now for the common
sense part. While these addicts certainly are capable of hitting the
machines every day of the year assuming they keep coming up with the
money (which in itself is a big assumption) I'd like to see the
results of their physical exams just prior to starting the year and
another just prior to the end of the year. Most of these jamokes
wouldn't pass it at the beginning anyway, but imagine the goop being
carried around after 365 days of cheap-ass buffets, sitting around
for hours every day, being worried to death about their money, and
all that smoke inhalation. Then let's imagine the perfection realized
during every hour of 1000 hph played. Yes we know, Bob D. claims he
makes no mistakes, but I've seen him make at least 25 in an hour that
he didn't know he made. And who doesn't make at least that many?
Stick with my bankroll requirement for each trip and you'll be fine.
GBC--my first book publisher--sent me a msg. to read thru Bob
Dancer's column today on bankroll requirement at casinogaming.com
(Several at GBC write columns right alongside him). I was asked to
comment on what it meant to me, because they so often see where I
recommend bankroll by the trip and not by some confusing 'long-
term,
overall' requirement.
I was a little surprised to see some common sense used at the
beginning of the article, but as soon as I saw Bob talk about how a
portion of his bankroll is in 'mutual funds' then it drifted
further
downward & away from there. Money in mutual funds is money
earmarked
for a type of living or money planned for retirement, and NEVER
should be a crutch for a gambling habit.
Why would you state this? If you don't have use for the money
immediately (which should be the case with gambling bankrolls) then,
long term, using a mutual fund is a better approach than a savings
account to increase the value of the bankroll.
I can't believe he would say
such a thing. This is just as stupid as Sen. Kennedy saying the
treasonous things he says with his aging, warped mind in Washington
these days.And who's Dancer kidding anyway? His eyes popped wide open when he
saw his wife-to-be had $30k in the bank. The fact that he has
turned
a non-gambler into whatever it is he now is, I believe is a
terrible
tragedy. Further, he continually tells the world that in games of
importance, she only makes plays after 'checking with him'. No
wonder
most gaming-related families don't last long....
The stated purpose of the comment about $30K in savings had to do
with spending habits, not gambling.
Near the end of his article he tries to show a 'simplified' formula
of using a figure of 3-5 royals as a bankroll requirement. 10/7 DB
is
used as an example in dollars, and of course his 'perfect play' is
an
absolute requirement (as he attempts to blab to us how he is one of
the few if not only one who plays it perfectly--which of course he
does not even come close to doing and he knows it).
Did you read the same article I did? I believe the quote was "Playing
these games less than expertly ...", and he uses 99.8% as the value,
NOT perfectly.
But hold on
there! He then slips in the recommendation that, because of DB
being
a 'streaky' game (what game ISN'T?) instead of $12,000-$20,000, you
just might want $25,000-$30,000. And he says, (and I quote) "$12k-
$20k probably should last you, but $25k-$30k is more like it for
this
game"!! Should last you for WHAT? He doesn't know why or even what
he's trying to tell us, but I think it has something to do with how
you'll be OK by the end of your playing days if you start with $30k.
I agree that his simplification is not all that accurate. However,
Bob did state at the beginning of the article that it was intended
for beginners. Going into complex equations would not be of much
value for this type of player.
Gee what fun. Play 10/7 DB dollars perfectly on and on and on
starting with $30k, and you just might not lose it all by the time
you put a foot in the grave. Oh what fun I'll have with this one!
If you really want to pick on something then Bobs' use of "their"
when it should be "they're" was the most glaring error.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
It's just more of the same 100% ABSURD crap that we've come to expect
from BD:
-"Expert" players actually have an advantage over the casino in the
long-term.
-Yet, given the item above, you still should expect to lose. OK Bob.
-Play only when theres a rope-em-in promotion going on.
-Stay on the same denomination and play for as long as you can stay
awake.
People are actually still paying this guy for stuff?? Amazing.
-Tom
···
Oh what fun I'll have with this one!
Why would you state this? If you don't have use for the money
immediately (which should be the case with gambling bankrolls)
then, long term, using a mutual fund is a better approach than a
savings account to increase the value of the bankroll.
Technically, yes. But someone like him whisks through cash-on-hand
faster than a Mexican can put away a taco. I've also caught him in so
many phoney story make-ups that his credibility about even HAVING one
mutual fund is suspect at best. It just strikes me odd that someone
such as BD would loosely toss around investment-type words in an
article about bankroll--one subject where he by his own writings
whether he intended to or not, clearly plays bankroll-to-denomination
ratios far over his own head.
The stated purpose of the comment about $30K in savings had to do
with spending habits, not gambling.
Right. It was staring him in the face when he met her. She was a
normal person back then, very comfortable with not gambling. Now what
is she.
Did you read the same article I did? I believe the quote
was "Playing these games less than expertly ...", and he uses 99.8%
as the value, NOT perfectly.
He eluded to the fact that he plays the game perfectly, several
times. The 99.8% was what he says others need to attain in order to
be successful.
I agree that his simplification is not all that accurate. However,
Bob did state at the beginning of the article that it was intended
for beginners. Going into complex equations would not be of much
value for this type of player.
His simplification is outright stupid. First it's $12k-$20k, then
it's $25k-$30k. And the series of complex equations don't do anything
for anyone either. Who really cares about risk of ruin when they come
to town for a few days? He has a bad habit of talking to people in
articles about unconventional, unattainable theory, in a way that he
also wants his readers to believe he is on some lofty plateau no one
else will ever reach. It's very clear to me that he's a simple
promotion-chasing, addicted, slick video poker businessman--which he
has every right to be. That's NOT someone you'd want preaching to you
about what a proper lifetime bankroll should be.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
It's just more of the same 100% ABSURD crap that we've come to
expect from BD:
People are actually still paying this guy for stuff?? Amazing.
I'm wondering how his hurricane cruise went!
Right. It was staring him in the face when he met her. She was a
normal person back then, very comfortable with not gambling. Now
what
is she.
I suspect a very normal person who now gambles ...
>
> I agree that his simplification is not all that accurate.
However,
> Bob did state at the beginning of the article that it was
intended
> for beginners. Going into complex equations would not be of much
> value for this type of player.His simplification is outright stupid. First it's $12k-$20k, then
it's $25k-$30k.
I didn't understand this caveat either. Since the bankroll differs by
game then that's what should have been stated and values given for
various games. A small table with most of the top games would have
been good. Also, it is almost impossible to discuss bankroll without
also talking about confidence factors.
And the series of complex equations don't do anything
for anyone either. Who really cares about risk of ruin when they
come
to town for a few days?
A few but not many. However, a lot of people come on to VPFREE and
ask about overall bankroll so it is a legitimate topic for a VP
author.
It's very clear to me that he's a simple
promotion-chasing, addicted, slick video poker businessman--which
he
has every right to be.
First, there's nothing wrong with chasing promotions. You've
indicated previously that you also get into some promotions. Second,
I know you think ALL advantage players are addicted, so this comment
is meaningless. And, finally, it's good to see you state there's
nothing wrong with being a good capitalist.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
She was a normal person back then, very comfortable with not
gambling. Now what is she.
I suspect a very normal person who now gambles ...
I've met her mother. She's changed.
> His simplification is outright stupid. First it's $12k-$20k, then
> it's $25k-$30k.I didn't understand this caveat either. Since the bankroll differs
by game then that's what should have been stated and values given for
various games. A small table with most of the top games would have
been good. Also, it is almost impossible to discuss bankroll
without also talking about confidence factors.
That's his way. He tries to be slick, indecisive, and irreproachable
on every issue, and most people buy it. Along with the stories he
makes up in some of his articles, it makes for a provocative mix to
the untrained eye.
A few but not many. However, a lot of people come on to VPFREE and
ask about overall bankroll so it is a legitimate topic for a VP
author.
I suppose some people are interested in the statistical side of
things for whatever that's worth, but my contention is always that
this detailed information doesn't do a thing for anyone when they
play. Even if they can somehow keep that info in a remote side of
their mind, casino distractions as well as the fever of play overcome
whatever previously perceived advantage such knowledge may have had.
After all, you've got the supposed GURU of bankroll inadvertantly
telling the world in several columns that he plays far beyond his
means at times. And then you have the Queen of Cheap....Ms. Frugal
Gambler....telling her subjects to sit at airports all day to get
bumped and to raid garbage bags, yet at the same time she can't hold
back the blab about playing the dollar & $2 5-plays, $5 machines, and
10-hour sessions. There's suspicious contradictions at every turn,
and those are what I look for so I can inform everyone in my columns.
> It's very clear to me that he's a simple promotion-chasing,
addicted, slick video poker businessman--which he has every right to
be.
First, there's nothing wrong with chasing promotions. You've
indicated previously that you also get into some promotions.
Second, I know you think ALL advantage players are addicted, so this
comment is meaningless.
Having been on both sides of the fence--and now very happily on the
sensible side--most so-called advantage players, upon meeting in
person, understand my comments and walk away agreeing with them more
after talking about what they do and why. I believe you tend to look
at promotion-chasing only from the technical side of things, where if
you take a deeper look you'll eventually see justification for a
video poker addiction looking back at you from an area a little bit
darker than you thought was there.
finally, it's good to see you state there's nothing wrong with being
a good capitalist.
I always say that about him and Jean S. I believe that's where they
are successful---not in video poker the game.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
And then you have the Queen of Cheap....Ms. Frugal
Gambler....telling her subjects to sit at airports all day to get
bumped and to raid garbage bags, yet at the same time she can't
hold
back the blab about playing the dollar & $2 5-plays, $5 machines,
and
10-hour sessions. There's suspicious contradictions at every turn,
and those are what I look for so I can inform everyone in my
columns.
Let's say your sitting in a casino and you see someone hit a RF on a
$5 machne. He collects his money and you watch him walk outside and
throw the money in a dumpster. What would you do?
Having been on both sides of the fence--and now very happily on the
sensible side--most so-called advantage players, upon meeting in
person, understand my comments and walk away agreeing with them
more
after talking about what they do and why. I believe you tend to
look
at promotion-chasing only from the technical side of things, where
if
you take a deeper look you'll eventually see justification for a
video poker addiction looking back at you from an area a little bit
darker than you thought was there.
I doubt this very much. Sounds more like a justification for your own
opinions.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> And then you have the Queen of Cheap....Ms. Frugal
> Gambler....telling her subjects to sit at airports all day to get
> bumped and to raid garbage bags, yet at the same time she can't
hold back the blab about playing the dollar & $2 5-plays, $5
machines, and 10-hour sessions. There's suspicious contradictions at
every turn, and those are what I look for so I can inform everyone in
my columns.
Let's say your sitting in a casino and you see someone hit a RF on
a $5 machne. He collects his money and you watch him walk outside and
throw the money in a dumpster. What would you do?
I'd go after it. But are you saying she watches players and hopes for
such an error in order to go thru the garbage? She rummages thru the
trash regardless whether there's proof of treasure in it or not. She
plays the 'advantage' percentages. Chances are, some fool accidently
tossed a ball point pen or 30 cents or a naked picture of himself,
and that's a special find that'll end up in her "garage of casino
junk". The point is--and I think you see this--that on one hand she
claims to be the keeper of frugality, while on the other her gambling
compulsion has her playing at limits that can hardly be considered to
be frugal.
> Having been on both sides of the fence--and now very happily on
the sensible side--most so-called advantage players, upon meeting in
> person, understand my comments and walk away agreeing with them
more after talking about what they do and why. I believe you tend
to look at promotion-chasing only from the technical side of things,
where if you take a deeper look you'll eventually see justification
for a video poker addiction looking back at you from an area a little
bit darker than you thought was there.
I doubt this very much. Sounds more like a justification for your
own opinions.
I understand how you feel. Like I said, you have to have been on both
sides in order to comprehend this, and you have to have serious, no-
nonsense discussions with other advantage players about it in order
to agree with it and maybe even see yourself 'somewhere down there'.
And this dictates that you must have the proper personality that
makes people around you feel very comfortable when they speak,
without outside influence that's very easy to come by.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: