--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:
> > ISP numbers is what I meant.
> It's called an IP address.
Here's an example of why you're looked at as such a fool on the
Internet by those whom you make believe listen to your words as
gospel. It also goes a long way in confirming why you always choose
to try and look smart to those smarter than you in any given field.
For ex., you want to portray that you know more than the
administrator on here, but he pulled down your pants much in the
same
manner I always do. So lets do it again!
From Wikpedia: "ISP:Short for Internet Service Provider, a company
that provides access to the Internet. For a monthly fee, the
service
provider gives you a software package, username, password and
access
phone number." And what does an ISP (not "IP") contain? YES! An
address comprised of NUMBERS!!!
ISP does stand for Internet Service Provider, like AOL. It is simply
a term for companies that provide connectivity to the internet,
usually with a fee attached. When you sign on to the internet through
an ISP you are either allocated a temporary address (or you may have
a permanent address) which is then used for communications to other
computers. The "numbers" are called an Internet Protocol Address or
IP address for short. They have nothing to do with the phone numbers
used to call an ISP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address
> It does to anyone with a brain. Your articles are posted because
they create controversy. I'm sure GT understands that any
controversy
has the potential to increase readership. You are similar to the 3
headed alien one might see on another newsstand rag.
And would such a publication have made it thru nealy 40 years and
have me causing controversial trouble for 7.5 of those with such a
policy? Rather, they reacted wisely to a complaining public when
they
fired two of your standing optimal-play heroes (both after less
than
a year on the PAYROLL of course) for boring, repititious writing
and
unprovable assertions---Dancer and the famous (hahaha!) Skip
Hughes!
Writing useful columns on VP is somewhat difficult. The subject is
not all that complex and I can see why after a year it would get
boring and repetitious. That is often the case with the truth. Then
again, I've heard others state your columns all sound the same ...
maybe there's another explanation ...
Then they went after me. They also made a mercy hiring with Fromm,
but he's just another shameless self-promoter tied to daddy's
shabby
strings who doesn't play but quotes books and is intimidated by me
no
end. He's almost as much fun whacking around as you are!
Of course, maybe the real explanation is Dancer and Hughes wouldn't
waste their time writing for no pay, you would.
> Not in the least. I state your claims are questionable due to the
> mathematical odds against them.
And because I've figured out a way to significantly reduce those
odds
to a workable & very profitable level, you can't handle it.
As always, no one cares if you've won or lost, only whether they have
a better chance of winning over time using your system. The answer to
that question is a simple NO.
>The lies I mentioned above are when
> you claim advantage play doesn't work. That is a bold face lie
and
> one you cannot avoid.
When 90%+ come to me and say it doesn't work after I experienced
the
same for over 6 years, it's no lie. Just because you have no other
interest in life besides video poker and you desperately NEED your
fantasy about the math to work, you won't have the undeniable truth
about what I say as a consideration. I.E., you're blinded by your
own
misconceptions and, ultimately, addiction to gambling. And I
understand it is not something you are capable of changing.
Now here is an obvious lie. I imagine around 90% of the APers that
have heard of you would laugh in your face. You haven't seen anywhere
close to 90% of the APers.
So, where are all these APers that support you? They sure don't seem
to be around to support you on any internet forum while they appear
in droves supporting Jean and Bob.
> I've ran the simulations which provide me all the information I
need.
Just as I said and as sooo many tell me they see in you--you are
afraid to try it with me to see how easy it is to win. Typical of
you, you pretend to "play with an edge", you admit I have a very
good
chance of winning, yet when it's time to walk the walk you run away
fast as you can. I personally believe you don't have the money to
do
it.
I suspect the truth is you believe I win and wish you had the same
talents.
> I also know from my own experience that had I been playing a
> progression there are days that I would have reaped great
benefits
> and there are days where nothing would have helped ... exactly
like
> the simulations project. What you don't "comprehend" is that
there
is
> nothing magical in what you do. You put money in a machine and
you
> will win or lose just like everyone else. Over time your results
will
> approach statistical predictions. You can ramble on but you can't
> overcome these mathematical truths.
Magical? No, never said that. Intelligent? Absolutely, and it is
this
divide that makes you foam at the mouth when trying to explain how
my
results just can't be what I say they are. I believe your greatest
fear is that there's someone out there who's actually proven that
he
has more intelligence than you, and you HAVE to keep trying to keep
it under wraps--pretending no one else would ever know you aren't
the
smartest vp player ever.
I doesn't take great smarts to be a successful VP player. Good
memorization skills and patience are the two MOST important
requirements.
> > Banning is a badge of honor in my case, but it wouldn't be in
> yours.
> > Splitting off from the bunch of mostly low-life video poker
players
> > who populate the forums is an eventuality for someone of my
> stature.
> > You, OTOH, are left only with video poker and all that it
> emcompasses
> > in your life, and being banned or reprimanded---AS WE'VE SO
CLEARLY
> > SEEN FROM THE WHINING AND HURT YOU'VE DISPLAYED HERE WHEN YOU
WERE
> > PUNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR--is the same as taking your
breath
> away
> > or removing the wind from your sails. You have no other life,
and
> all
> > one need do is read all the forums once a week to see how much
time
> > you spend living your fantasy life on Internet forums. It is
> > sad....but it is also laughable and easy to make fun of.
>
> It is sad to see your jealous rants. You really do need to seek
help.
Spoken like a true wounded animal! I think I'll leave it in there
for
another 24 hours of devastating effect.
It appears you are your own worst enemy once again. I'd be more than
happy to leave your jealous rant around for another 24 hours. The
projections are really hilarious.
> > I have no need to back up anything, and no one whom I've helped
has
> > ever asked to see whatever it is you think there is about the 3
> > people who reviewed/advised on my strategy's development.
Besides,
> > only neurotic critics like you keep whining about proof of this
and
> > proof of that because as losers, you can't begin to fathom
others
> > winning so often and so much. AND THERE AIN'T MANY OF YOU. Talk
> about
> > proof of unverifiable claims, I can't even get you to show me
proof
> > of your phony claims that you've won anything. To you, only
your
> > version of proof works, but when I say I want to see what the
IRS
> > wants to see such as bank statements with supporting records of
> > withdrawals/deposits that verify ALL of your so-called claims,
you
> > cower and run for cover. But that's typical. You live in your
own
> > little world of make believe, where the truth hurts and life
has
> lost
> > its meaning. But wait!....that's why you've allowed video poker
to
> > take over, become the end-all, and WRECK your life!!
>
> I take it you're now backing down from looking at my tax return.
Oh, well, I knew it was going to happen. You'd never want to admit
to
> seeing proof that I have won.
I like how you try to let the arrows I make direct hits with
disappear....
I'll be at the South Point April 3-6. You hang out there about 6
hours a day, right? Bring your return at 2am on Sat. morning at the
far end of the bar near the sports book & poker room along with
your
gaming record and your bank account statements that meticulously
correspond to each of your withdrawal/re-deposit (win/loss) claims,
and I'll do exactly what I said I'd do if you can show me cash
winnings with no slot club fluff. I suggest you show and only with
what I can determine is absolute proof, and what i'm requiring is
EXACTLY the same as the IRS would want. No hemming or hawing. No
substitutes or stuttering. Just be there. Or watch me light you up
again in Gaming Today as a fake cowardly fool who once again turned
yellow and backed down.
Just as I said, you backed down. Sorry, Robbie but you've used this
ploy way too often for anyone to fall for it anymore. You first ask
for my tax returns and I agree. But now that you realize I will
provide them you start throwing in other "stuff" and you state a time
you know will be inconvenient for me. I think your self-projection as
a "cowardly fool" hits the mark perfectly.
> > > See, there's a lie. There are just too many people out there
> doing exactly that for luck to play any part of it.
You mean like your protege Eliot Fromm, who has so little money and
gambles once a year? I'd say you fell on your own GUN!
I don't know him, so, no, I didn't mean him. If you had been at the
Tuscany when they had their little fiasco you'd have seen around 100
APers all sitting at machines for the double jackpot promotion. In
only a few minutes lights were flashing everywhere as one jackpot
after another was hit. I think I could safely say 100% of these APers
would laugh in your face. Of course, the casino cancelled the
promotion after only an hour as they quickly realized they were going
to lose much more than they had planned. It wouldn't be too far off
to say they lost 40 thousand in that hour alone.
> > Yada yada yada. Ask Yuri why he went broke and back to Siberia.
Ask
> > Rick Radner why he needs to keep withdrawing from his father's
> > inheritance. Ask Lenny Fromm why he admitted to Howard &
Maryann
at
> > Gamblers Bookshop before he died that he couldn't make money
and
NO
> > ONE could make money playing expert video poker. He only was in
it
> > because of an interest in math and an addiction to the game.
Ask
> Jean
> > Scott why she needs a partner with a hefty 401k...along with
all
> her
> > other sales. Ask Bob Dancer why he needs to work work work and
sell
> > sell sell to make ends meet. Ask Dan Paymar why he had to leave
LV.
> > Ask Anthony Curtis and Wong why they needed to come up with an
> > alternate way to make a living after gambling didn't work out.
And
> I
> > can give you a list of at least 700 others who've admitted
failure
> at
> > optimal play because it doesn't work. So bring your lies to
vp.com
> > where there are plenty of suckers that think you know what you
say.
>
> OK, I'll ask you to provide ONE piece of evidence to support just
one of your claims above.
You mean like how you've asked all of them to provide just ONE
piece
of evidence to prove their claims that they've won? Or wait a
minute!-
-Do you want to take the easy way out again and say they HAD to
have
won because they said they are all AP'S and the math says they
should
win?? Again, you live on theory and I live in the REAL WORLD!!
HELLO....Anybody home in there McFLY??!
Translation: Robbie doesn't have ONE piece of evidence. However, I
just gave a situation above where it was obvious that APers won big.
Just because these people found additional ways
> to make income does not have anything to do with their gambling
> results.
Yeah right. Couldn't possibly be that they need an INCOME now,
could
it??
There is no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. OTOH, the
mathematics makes it clear that it is MUCH MORE LIKELY they did not
need it.
You're very gullible, but with a purpose. You're whole life
(whatever's left after riddling it with a gambling problem, that
is)
would go into SERIOUS TILT! if you used common sense on this.
I just used "common sense" and demonstrated that it is simply your
jealousy that blinds you.
> > And therein lies one of your main problems and why so many
people
> > make fun of you. You want to believe you understand the math
better
> > than most players, but the truth is most of the people I train
> > display a greater understanding than that which you spew over
the
> > Internet.
>
> I suspect not a one of them could do a simple combinatorial
problem.
> If they could they would already know you are lying to them. Of
> course, combinatorial arithmetic probably is beyond you as well.
You know, at least I come right out and say most vp players are low-
lifes who are grossly fat and sloppily dressed, and who have
drinking
problems. I see it and verify it all the time and talk to many of
them about it. But you think they're all dumber than you but you
really don't know, so you throw out assertions that you won't have
to
prove because there's no way to prove it. But hey, stick with the
Dick theory. BTW--I've got more degrees than you and I'm a real EE.
that's why I wasn't a lowly programmer who uses his declining years
trying to pretend he was something in his younger days - aka, punch
card heaven!
Short answer was "NO", Robbie. So, you can't do simple arithmentic.
Not surprising at all. I used the term "combinatorial arithmetic"
just to see what you would do. All it requires is a little addition,
subtraction, mutiplication and division.
> LMAO. Your "WINNING technique" is pure BS. The math doesn't care
> about all your claims, it only cares about the games you play. If
> they are positive game then you can claim it is a winning
technique,
> if they are negative games then the technique is a LOSER.
Here's a flash! The "math" is incapable of caring!!
In other words, you agree that math provides the correct answer
without caring whether it produces winners or losers. Therefore, my
last sentence was TRUE.
> > You mean you want to see what the few critics have to say. You
> > already know how neurotic you are when anyone speaks up in
support
> of
> > what I've done for them or my overall play strategies. You
> > immediately come out and claim it's me in disguise - and you
are
> > usually the ONLY such fool - and that's proof you not only
NEVER
> want
> > it to be that there are such players---you can't handle it!
It's
> > actually quite amusing watching you make such a fool of
yourself.
>
> I think this pretty much backs up everything I've said. You are
> completely afraid of the feedback you'd get with a forum on your
> website. You gotta love it ...
And you think no one can see thru your transparent portrayal of
yourself.....
LMAO. Changing the subject won't work. You know as well as I do that
a forum would be the perfect place for those who have tried your
system to return and state they lost. Most people promoting a winning
technique would want feedback, those promoting a con clearly don't
want feedback. I rest my case.
> > > This smacks of jealousy since you have no idea whether your
> > statement is true or not. Whether you realize it or not, making
> these
> > kind of claims makes YOU look poorly.
> >
> > Common sense says otherwise. And I know more than you think.
>
> No, common sense is working against you. Anyone who makes
> unsubstantiated claims appears to others as a jealous crybaby.
Now there's another flip-flop...or is it sticking foot #2 into your
mouth again??
Sorry, but your obvious jealousy exposes itself over and over. It
appears you've run out of ways to defend yourself.
> > You didn't get it, and you obviously never had much contact
with
> > consultants who knew what they were doing.
>
> Appearances are important in the business world. Obviously, you
> missed that class. They get you in the door, however, if a
consultant
> cannot provide value they will not be called back, that is
capitalism
> at work. I think it's pretty clear exactly who does not "get it".
So after I schooled you on the most important part of Dancer, you
decided to try and cover up your miss with a wordy response!
HAHAHA!!
You get better with age!!!
Thank you.
> > And you would never admit to the obvious. No one would buy a
thing
> > from them or hire them for anything if they admitted they lost.
All
> > they need do is give the PERCEPTION they are winners thus
creating
> > false value. Jean Scott finally admitted so, but in her current
> state
> > of mind I don't think she cares any more.
>
> You are correct that percpetion is important ... didn't I just
say
> that above. However, they have already provided ample evidence
that
> they HAVE won.
I must have missed it--just like everyone else. Now WHERE is that
evidence again?? This must be another way you think you're getting
back at Dancer for being smarter than you and having made good use
out of his ability to understand programming--when you simply
fizzled
away.....
Dancer's large win at the MGM is well documented and you have
actually criticized him for it. Jean and Brad's latest big wins were
also verified by several others present. So, you didn't "miss it",
you just ignore it due to severe jealousy.