--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> It's only your jealousy of me that makes you want to interpret
> anything in that manner. I've not had any posting privileges
changed so zilch on the "smacked down" claim.
You didn't want to get it. Just the mere fact that you've been
reprimanded for your conduct is a giant slap in the face to you.
Are you referring to that "friendly email" from the admin? Sorry to
disappoint you but that kind of retaliatory BS only makes the
administrator look foolish. I took great joy in pointing out his lack
of ethics in an obvious attempt to quiet me. However, I do appreciate
you bringing this subject up again so I can continue to comment on it.
And, even if that were to
> happen it wouldn't be a problem to me. I haven't seen any useful
> information on VPfree in a long time.
That's because I don't post there. When I have, the admin. almost
always has edited my post out, and I accept it even though I know
most people want to read my views. I could always take an argument
with the guy over here but I don't. I also have the ability--as
you've repeatedly seen on LVA Sports & Free-For-All (and always
under
my own name regardless what anyone likes to believe)--to "go
around"
their blocks any time I choose, and I occasionally do so because
their moderators are hateful people. Not so here, so I respect what
happens.
Going around is easy. Create another email id is all it takes. I hope
you don't think that is difficult.
In most respects I am against heavy handed moderation as well.
However, you are your own worst enemy by the overall negative nature
of the vast majority of your posts. Take vp.com for example, the
moderator gave you THREE chances. If you would lighten up a little
you wouldn't have a problem and you'd probably enjoy it more as well.
>I provide much more to the
> forum than I receive. Helping others is my primary motivation and
it is also what made me question the admins actions.
You try to help people but you tell unmitigated lies about me all
the
time whenever my name surfaces, and perhaps that's part of the
problem.
Name one.
I help hundreds and hundreds of players understand what
they're doing and how to enjoy it more and lose less/win for a
change, and I charge no one a thing for my time and my expenses.
You
can't keep attacking the most important name in video poker and not
expect to feel the pinch in seemingly mysterious ways forever.
See, you can't go a single sentence without lying. You are helping no
one by telling them to play on negative expectation machines with a
mathematically neutral progression. If you simply stated a
progression changes the dynamics of playing VP then no one would
argue with you. Winning more sessions is probably enough to satisfy
some gamblers. It's when you claim it is the ONLY way to win that
gets you in a lot of trouble.
I've told you for years that the math behind VP is relatively simple.
There will be lots of winners if they are playing the opportunities
available today. Of course, there will also be a few losers who are
just unlucky to be at the wrong end of the bell curve or didn't
understand the proper way to decipher these opportunities.
> I have no problem with Bob in most regards. He posts lot's of
good
> information. His only problem is he tends to let his ego invade
many of his remarks.
Maybe it's better to respect the guy for his dedication to what he
does as I do, and then take this road: Only attack him for his
shameless self-promotion in every post so he can get at other
people's money. Everything he does is geared towards selling
strategy
in whatever way he can. And if players can't see that no one--esp.
in
his age bracket--would EVER work the jobs he does when he
supposedly
can win tens of thousands at will just by playing a casino game,
then
they're as blind as Stevie Wonder and they don't understand what
common sense really is.
I thought you were a good capitalist. I have never had a problem with
Bob selling product. It's the American way. I do have a problem when
he demeans others or criticizes other products unnecessarily.
The same with Jean Scott. Everyone knows she
wants their money and that's the ONLY important thing to her. But
because of her marketing skills she's managed to have a decent
sized
base of players believing in her $3 bill show, and her subjects are
more than happy to look the other way so as not to embarrass her.
Once again I have no problem with Jean making a buck. The FACT is she
has helped thousands of players understand casino comps, etc. I
really think GWB would be angry with you for taking this stand
against capitalism.
Both Bob and Jean have provided products that support the
mathematically proven, optimal approach to VP. That is why they have
been successful.
In many ways I think I've helped Bob with this
> problem. Since I started calling him on this problem I think he
has
> cleaned up his fact considerably (although not completely). I
realize
> he is walking a tight line where he wants to come off as THE
> confident expert. The more people value his knowledge, the more
money
> he will make. However, if people viewed him negatively then it
could
> hurt his sales. I'm pretty sure he is trying to find the right
> balance ... it only makes business sense.
It's more like he NEEDS to balance it all out. Sales and
appearances
depend on it. And you still believe he makes money playing?
I have no idea what "plays" Bob is involved in and whether he has
been successful. However, I know from my own experience that winning
is a natural effect of playing with an advantage. Given Bob's obvious
knowledge inherent in his writings, the logical conclusion would be
he wins overall when CB, BB and cash-valued comps are considered.
Just like
those sports-betting bazooka's over on LVA Sports and other sites,
you see most of the names selling or trying to sell either picks or
math work ups that help predictions. And they give the same dumb
argument you see whenever I criticize the vp gurus for taking other
people's money to gamble with. "So what if they want to make more
money?" Here's why it's hypoctitical. If you're so good at
gambling,
JUST WIN MORE.
That is enough for most professionals. Bob is only one of many, many
pros out there who are making a living playing VP. However, IMO Bob
also likes the limelight and that has motivated him to venture out
into other aspects of the business.
Ask any of these people 20 years ago what they'd have
said if they could predict their futures. Would they say "My dream
is
to become a professional gambler who wins...AND WHO WORKS!" Of
course
not. They all would want the easy life I have, only maybe they just
didn't prepare for it right. Look at slick story-tellers like
Stanford Wong and Anthony Curtis among many others. They would have
the gambling world believe they are barred from everywhere
important
so they had to turn to the gambling business to make a living, yet
I
didn't accept the BS and I checked before I did my article on it.
So
if you're thinking you helped tame Dancer, I'm not so sure. If I
were
you I'd work on giving Dan Paymar a lesson on how NOT to present
himself on the forums....or maybe seeing if you can get Eliot Fromm
to stop repeating all the nonsense his father wrote years ago.
Once again you only criticize those who have profited outside of the
playing opportunities. GWB would not be happy. The only question
should be whether they are ethical in their businesses. If not, then
you have a right to complain, but only complain about those ethics
problems, not that they are living the American dream.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@> wrote: