vpFREE2 Forums

Now Isn't This Special.....

From a post tonight on vpFREE-----------

···

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Overall for the trip we didn't hit any royals and finished down
about $2800. However, the $165 cashback from the Venetian and $150
sweepstakes win did bring this down to under $2500 in absolute cash.
Just about where I would expect to be with 100K coin-in and no royal.
rhizome"
----------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the math came through for these people, yesiree! Just where
they 'expected to be' after $100k of "playing like the addicts do"! And
no doubt they bought every book by Jean Scott, Dan Paymar, and all of
Bob Dancer's strategy cards just so it wouldn't be a surprise when it
happened the way the math predicted it would! But gee, they got their
cash back and hit the sweepstakes BIG time, didn't they...... And you
know what? If they get a chance to chat with any of the gurus or Mr.
Wizards....even our own little dicky....there really will be no problem
after all. If they can somehow manufacture that they played
in 'positive EV' situations, then they've lost absolutely nothing. What
they did, by golly, is WIN because they 'played with an edge'! Now all
they gotta do is figure out how to deposit all those phantom bucks. At
1.5%, that's 1500 of them! But you know what? Little dicky can help
them there too. He makes deposits 'all the time'!!

It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that he mentions my
name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine all of these
threads together to limit the number of items posted. They're all
pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself so often.

I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies in Rob's
posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his lastest trip to
Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime he
gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this, if
you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the goal?
If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.

I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never responded to this
question so let me ask him again. How can you have only 8 losses at
the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session losses overall?
Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just didn't think through
this lie. Of course, this calls into question EVERYTHING that Rob has
ever claimed. If he will lie about his gambling record here, how can
anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the truth.

Further comments are interspersed below.

Re: Little dicky's Shattered Life....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > I've figured out why my pal is so misled and

unknowledgeable

in the world of the modern programmer, and why he can't listen to

or

> > even hear logic. He's still embedded into the days where he

used

> > punch-out cards to program the computers!

> > > Sorry to blow your bubble again moron, but punch cards went

out

> in the 60s. Sure, a few technically backwards organization still
used them (probably where Rob came up with this).

> > HAHAHA!! A RATTLED LITTLE DICKY isn't the WORD for what he must
be going through with this shot! Goddam---right to the HEART!!
Imagine what would happen if I opened my eyes and fired away!!
(Now onto the neurotic try at 'setting the record straight' so in
> his mind, he won't be able to believe anyone's laughing at him.)

> Are you through babbling yet? I guess Rob must have thought punch
> cards were used into the 90s. Is he lost or what?

Doesn't much matter what I think, little dicky.

I agree with that statement completely.

What I KNOW is what's
important here, and I know you are RATTLED beyond your normal

limit.

Why else would you be so persistent on telling us meaningless
nonsense about the punch cards you're so infatuated with??

Nice try dipstick. I made you look like a fool for bringing up punch
cards. It's been obvious for a long time that you are complete techno-
weenie. This just adds more evidence.

> > >>However, I started using
> > > dependent computer terminals in the early 70s and was using
both
> > > networked PCs and UNIX workstations at the time I retired. I
know
> > you won't understand any of this, but others will.
> >
> > I don't know about laughing any more here, because I've laughed
so much I now have to THROW UP!!
>
> Nice try, but you've once again shown you have no comprehension

of

> the real world. Of course, RIV has been telling us that all

along.

> Now we get to see it from Robbie himself.

You have no mercy. You want me to DIE LAUGHING at your damage
control!?

Hollow words. Do you still believe that no one can read? You brought
up punch cards, you look foolish. How's that rotary phone of yours?

> > > One dimensional....B&W.....and too simple for words. And why
> > doesn't he want to realize the technological advances
> > that have been made? Obviously, the girls in the short skirts

who

> sat nearby and punched the cards all day long! I really should
start charging for this stuff!
  
> > > You already got paid more than this drivel is worth. ZERO.
> > > PS. I'll correct your spelling for you in the subject line.
> I can only imagine the embarrassment that would cause Rob to

babble

> on like this. We've already seen many times that his frustration

is

> directly correlated to his babbling. Of course, everyone can see
why Rob is resorting to trash talking. I've proved him to be a LAF
and a con man. His back is against the wall.

Yes, that's some wall behind me there, yesiree! Babbling/trash-
talking....oh my, these are the main issues here now that little
dicky can't find his way home to comfy land. Yikes!

RIV. Still works for me. By the way, Are your rabbit ears still
bringing in good TV reception?

···

-------

Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > Give it up, little dicky. Over and over again you're out-

classed

> and
> > made the fool of your own field. Trying to make yourself feel
> better
> > about all the sense here is superficial and will be rendered
> useless
> > just as soon as you read my reply. I sense you're geek-armor
> > weakening as we speak. Oh, can it EVER get any better than
this?!!
> > When will we have the chance again to watch as little dicky
wallows
> > away in self-sympathy?? And I though pulling the nerds' pants
down
> in
> > the girl's high school gym was the epic moment in my life!
> >
> > > I see that Rob's "wordiness" continues.
> >
> > Yup--by a professional writer to boot! The more I can lay on

you

> the better the day....and night!
>
> Oh, haven't you been sleeping well? That's too bad, I suppose
having your con exposed will do that. All you need to do is go get
some help and you'll feel much better.

I don't need sleep when I'm having THIS much fun! I could stay

awake

forever if I was able to write you into the ground as often as I'm
doing tonight!!

I think it's pretty clear that all these words ... babbled in every
post ... claiming to have so much fun ... is a little too forced.
Could it be that this is just another attempt to try and look good in
the face of overwhelming defeat? Rob's Little Bighorn.

> > >Did I mention that is a sure sign he has been rattled?
> >
> > Kind of a wee bit too late to wear that comfy blankey to bed,
> little dicky. You've been spanked so hard MY HAND is red!
>
> It's never too late for the truth. You should know that by now.

Now you're speaking my language. Too late though. Both my hand and
your butt are RED!

So, Rob wants to touch my butt. I knew he was jealous, but this is a
little extreme.

> > >Yup, poor Robbie, repeating the same insults over and over
again. Is he this repetitive in real life?

>And loving every repeat, because just as we used to kick the nerds
down when they tried so hard to get up, it's just as satisfying
now....even more so, as I get to watch a live nerd suffer over and
over again before my very eyes. Thank you God!
>
> Notice the dramatic increase in words. A sure sign I called this
one correctly. Not only that, but he just repeated his standard BS
again. How sweet it is ...

You're right--I'm really on a roll tonight and lovin every minute

of

it! What a way to end a great day! Nerd-whacking!!

The repetitive, hollow words continue. Each time he demonstrates his
obvious frustration. How sweet it is ...

> > > I bet Rob really like the one about buying property in
Louisiana.
> >
> > ??? What are you making up now?
>
> Try to keep up.

With what--the whooping you're taking?

I guess Rob got lost ... Oh well, another day another example of
Rob's ignorance.

> > I'll
> > > wait and see if optdouble can respond, but don't count on it.
He
> > claims to be a software engineer, yet, he doesn't understand
> > that "secondary programming" and a "second program" are two
> entirely
> > different things. Secondary programming is ANY code inserted to
> > modify the behavior of the RNG.

> > Isn't that just like a nervous ranting geek to make believe he
> knows things someone else doesn't--
>
> I think your shill has been uncovered, little man. Opt-shill goes
on about ALL sorts of special programming that would take lots of
extra memory. I guess he thinks IGT is in the business to lose

money

just to provide special help to the casinos. He also failed to
explain why the NGC, which reviews every line of code, would

somehow

miss all of this special programming.

Yada yada yada on and on and on about his saving face. He just HAD

to

get these words of geek-wisdom in or else he would toss and turn

all

night long!

It appears Robbie faces another sleepless night. Did you see him
refute anything I stated? Nope. Once again the facts are little
Robbie's downfall. How sweet it is ...

> > and/or tries to correct someone with BS!
> > Where would this nerd be without his ability to 'set his record
> > straight' which he so neurotically needs to do every time

someone

> > comes on and shows a tad bit of intelligence that goes beyond

his

> > archaic knowledge base? How he must HURT inside.....

> Yup, your shill sure is "intelligent", I'd think even you would
have been embarrassed by his ridiculous statements.

I don't really know what a 'shill' is, but I'm betting it's some

sort

of imaginary thing having to do with gambling, since gambling
controls every aspect of your life.

--------------------

Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > Thanks, Rob. Finally a clear explanation that we can all
> > > > understand. Although we will be probably see a bunch of
> replies
> > > > talking about how this is "illegal" and "wouldn't be
> allowed".

> > > That's because it IS illegal ... not to mention, casinos have
> > nothing to gain. They already have the edge in almost all

games.

Why would they risk losing their lucrative gambling business?

> > Blah blah blah---same old rant with the same old tune of geek-
> denial attached.
>
> Looks like the facts did it again. Stopped Robbie cold.

Brrrrr....yup it's really cold here in Phoenix tonight! If little
dicky had any facts for a change I'd dance the jig. All I see is
whining like "gee, it's illegal because I don't do it" and "casinos
have nothing to gain because I don't get that part of it". Truly, a
weeny whiner!

Still out in the cold, little man? How does it feel to have your
idiotic claims shown impotent time and again?

> > > > Do
> > > > you really trust the casinos that much??? After

minimally

> > > > complying with the regulations, you should expect them to

try

> and
> > > > take every dollar that they can in any way humanly possible.
> > >
> > > Well, first off, this would NOT be "minimally complying with
the
> > > regulations", it would be breaking the law.
> >
> > Which law---geek law?
>
> NV law that doesn't allow machines to be modifed.

That's exactly why they arrive in true form just as I've explained
with the facts a thousand times. What? Doesn't fit into little
dicky's pipeline mind? Must be wrong!! Geek-law is right and

everyone

else is wrong!!

Everyone else (except you and opt-shill) can read the law and accept
it. If they've been in casinos very often they've probably even seen
techs changing paytables/games/etc. The machine is shut down and the
process takes quite a bit of time. Next, I suppose, you'll claim
they do this all for show. LMAO.

> > you've already been instructed on how the
> > contracts are written, you don't want a personal education

class

on
> > contract law, and you clearly couldn't live with yourself if

you

> ever
> > came to the understanding that what you believe in is not the

way

> it
> > is. Does the words 'little dicky's foolish' make any sense to
you??
>
> Still no contracts involved, LAFman. Just NGC regs. However, this
is an entirely different regulation (reg 5). The one that doesn't
allow casinos to change any programming in the machines without NGC
> approval. Let's hear you lie your way of of this one.

Right on cue! I've directed little dicky to look up more of the

state

CONTRACT and he does EXACTLY as I tricked him into doing--flops out
another regulation from the CONTRACT. And this gets funnier. Then

he

proceeds to step into it BIG TIME! He makes believe everyone

against

his geek-logic is sayiung that the machines are changed after they
arrive at the casinos!! Can anyone possibly be more thick??

ROTFLMAO. Did Rob actually think anyone would read his mighty babble
and believe it? All he did was deny what is clearly written in black
and white. Rob, you're not doing too well here. Maybe you should
rethink your entire approach. Just tell everyone the dog ate all the
NGC regs and made them invalid.

> > I mean, who do you think is contributing the money to build all
> of those huge casino hotels anyways....
> > >
> > > The players playing without an edge. Yup, the players who

play

> > > roulette, craps, BJ, stud, etc.; the players crowding into

the

> > poker rooms where the casinos takes a % of every pot; the

players

> > hitting the slots; the clueless VP players. I think we're up to
> about 99% of casino customers. Was this really supposed to be an
> > intelligent statement?
> >
> > There it is again....it's "the other guys" who lose and not
little dicky or any of the 'gurus'. Ho-Hum.... So wordy, yet so
nerdy....

> So, you think these players all win? How do the casinos stay in
> business?

Only a few intelligent players win, bozo. Like myself, Bob, and a
handful of people who write to me that all use some variation of my
play strategies.

Save your watch ...

Fools like you & the gurus have no chance without
continuous extreme luck and you know it. The real money never

leaves

with you. You make a bundle in 'phantom bucks' because you play

like

frenzied addicts, but how many times are you laughed at when you

walk

in the bank with a theoretical deposit??!!

Another scramble, Robbie? This is getting beyond OBVIOUS. I have you
so nailed at every turn that all you can do is babble. By the way,
did you get your babbler tuned up? While you're at it, I would also
suggest a brain overhaul. Your current one is leaking logic all over
the place.

> > > > So, basically a bunch of "advantage players" playing the

same

> > > machine more or less ensures that the number of Royal Flushes
will be LESS than expected almost all of the time since the machine
will not be making enough money to get into a mode where "hot cycle
corrections" are needed.
  
> > > Did I mention clueless?

> > I certainly have, many times, and you fit that bill like a tee.

> Poor try Robbie. This guy's just another yahoo who believes the
> machines are controlled externally. Even you know better than

that.

Externally? Now you making THAT up too?? Are you THAT sore about
losing here??

Sorry, to hit you with the facts again, but your shill claimed that
the machines would be set to pay back less during promotions. That is
called an "external switch". So, are you supporting this position?
Are you claiming to be just as idiotic?

> > > > In other words, enough idiot players would be needed to
> > > > make the required profit on the machine to ensure that

enough

> > Royal Flushes could be "allowed".

> > > I wonder if this guy even understands that this is beyond
> secondary programming. This would require throwing out the RNG
altogether.

> > More evidence that you've never kept up with modern technology

in

> > your own sorry field. Do you have to keep embarrassing me, as
your sponsor here??
>
> Your repetitive words are getting more hollow all the time.

Please

> explain how the NGC code reviewers would miss all this extra code.

Please...PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself! It embarrasses me too

you

know, as your sponsor here!

LMAO. Put a direct question to Robbie and watch him scramble. Whatsa
matter, little man. The truth hitting you where it hurts?

> This would also suggest that somebody would be a COMPLETE IDIOT

to

keep playing a machine after it just hit a Royal Flush,
> correct? Because the machine would surely be overcorrected

after

that point, and would probably be starting a bunch of new cold

cycles.

> > > So, I guess the two times I hit RFs within 15 minutes of each
> other on the same machine is impossible. I'd better go back and
check those W2Gs and see if they are real.

> > You just proved another point. That machine was in a hot cycle
that was required to correct it's hold percentage upwards. Thank

you.

> After giving me a double RF? Yup. That's right. This machine pays
> double on RFs. 4.4% of the total payout. You better head back to
the drawing board, your lies are easily dismissed.

Oh, so now you add THAT in only after you struggled? And leave it

to

you to make up that 4.4% number. It paid you what it paid you that
night and it had nothing to do with theory. You can't even enjoy

the

times you win because you're so intertwined with analyzing every
aspect of the math models. No wonder you lead such a sour life!

Boy is Rob ever scrambling bigtime. Once again he can't respond to a
factual statement.

> > > > So, if a machine was running really cold while you were on
it,
> > > would you be more inclined to try the "special plays" on the
> theory
> > that it might be getting ready for a "corrective hot cycle", or
> would
> > you wait to do them after a machine starts to go hit small pays

a

> > > couple of times after running cold for a while first?

> > > That land in Louisiana is still for sale. Never mind that the
> gulf is eroding several feet of it every day. As long as it's in
a "hot" cycle I'm sure you'll be OK.
> >
> > Now the dufus is a Geologist in addition to a geek! Can it
possibly get any funnier tonight?

> If optdouble believes your con, he'd fall for anything. Maybe you
can sell him some of that land you bought last fall.

Yup, there's my answer! It just got funnier, and the joke CONTINUES
to be on little dicky!

This is getting hilarious. Rob must not know that everytime a big
storm passes near Louisiana a part of the coast is reclaimed by the
gulf. I thought this story was shown so many times last summer that
EVERYONE would know it by now. I guess Robbie missed it ... like so
many other things that pass him by.

> > > > Also, it would stand to reason that correct "casino

strategy"

> for
> > > VP machines would be to take over a machine which has just
busted
> > out somebody after they placed a decent amount of credits on

it,

in
> > the theory that they have used up a lot of the cold cycles, and
the
> > machine is then theoretically nearer to a corrective hot cycle.
> >
> > > I doubt that this is Robbie. Even he can see how idiotic this
> > sounds. Did I mention clueless?

> > Is that supposed to be a reply--or are you at a loss for words
> > again?? At least you didn't make me laugh here too!
>
> 18 words this time ... A new record for you. I made my points and
you looked foolish trying to refute the facts with nothing but
idiotic babbling. How sweet it is ...

HAHAHA! I've even got you analyzing posts now! You are sooooo my
puppet. and being your own worst enemy is an added bonus that I

thank

the Lord for every moment I'm on here!

Yup. You've got me right where I want you. Good job. I still love the
one about multiple cold cycles. A mathematical impossibility and
Robbie keeps uttering it over and over again.

--------------------------

Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > I know I know, you depend on these long, messy threads

to

> try and confuse anyone who reads them....which is not the norm

for

a geek--we all see how nervous you are in your quest to make

yourself

feel at least half-confident after you've been flogged in public

yet

again. I suggest for that good feeling of being superior, bo on

back

in and boss your wife around again. That'll get your confidence

back

up there, for sure! Make believe she's me and it'll climb that much
faster. Go ahead---give it your best shot like you do all the time!
Never mind you've never had the upper hand with me. Just "make
believe" (now that's not hard for a pathological addict todo, is
it???) you're pushing a REAL MAN around and you'll be set free!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, who is the wordy one? It looks like I hit a nerve
again.
> > Rob obviously thought that posting a response, with the proof

of

> his
> > > > lies deleted, that he could make it go away. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > That hurt, didn't it!
> > >
> > > No, not in the least. I got a good laugh at all of your
babbling.
> >
> > That REALLY hurt, didn't it!
>
> Is your babbler stuck? Did I mention repetitive?

the more you read it the more you get an itch you'll never be able

to

scratch. Am I THE MASTER or what!

THE MASTER liar. That is exactly what you are. It's nice to see we
agree on something.

> > It's OK, little dicky. I understand your
> > pain here, seeing that you realize other people can see how you
> boss the wife around and all. You can use my nanky. And good.
that's the sign of a direct hit. Whenever you try to weasel out of

a

topic you simply post RIV and hope it all just goes away.
>
> LMAO. I really think his babbler IS stuck. Same words over and

over

> again. No facts, no logic, just the same old drivel. Rob, I think
you better take that babbler in for some repairs. Maybe a 2 million
> babble checkup.

Kinda hard to diffuse the bomb I set about you abusing your wife

day

in and day out, huh?? Just gets a little under your skin, right
little dicky??

This too funny. This is RIV in high gear. Just who do you think
people would believe is an abuser? A cyberbully like you or a
logical, fact bearer like myself? ROTFLMAO.

> > > Sorry, you're the only one who deletes the body of threads.

Did

> you think the archives would vanish as well. Are you a complete
moron?
> >
> > And now comes the denial brought on by struggling to feel
confident that you make any sense. Keep it up--nothing but

enjoyment

on this end! But uh-oh.....I'm baaaack! You'll have to suffer thru
all your nightmares about me because I deliver the truth about your
phoniness, and you support it with your stupidity.

> Make that a 3 million babble checkup.

And a triple threat to your sanity!

Let's see if I understand this correctly. You think idiotic babbling,
lies and childish rants are a threat ... your brain may need more
than an overhaul. I think a full replacement is a better choice.

> > > No, everyone skims over your babbling so easily. All those
words just go down the tube without having there intended effect.
> >
> > Here's a flash, little dicky....they're all for only YOU!! I
> already see your pain here and you never were any good at hiding
it. So why not let's SHARE it!!
>
> Yawn. Robbie pretty much just admitted to being a complete moron.
> Everyone else can see your words never effect me.

Taken from the sticks & stones mentality from growing up! Tey I saw
you geeks a bit differently. You were stomped on, called names,
knocked down, you got up, we knocked you fools down again, and
eventually you started crying out "MOMMY, MOMMY...the cool guys are
hurting me!!" You're really doing the same thing here. If nothing
affected you you'd simply walk away and not have any need to say a
thing. But you're hurtin little dicky, and the pain is REAL!

RIV. Robbie was never a cool guy. His continual mention of his
childhood days makes that abundantly clear. I guess he thinks that by
asserting he was someone, it will change history ... is this guy ever
going to grow up?

> It's your middle name, Rob Adlads Singer. And, just another

reason

> for your jealousy.

Now who in the name of Pete is that!? I swear, you are sooo corny

and

such a nerd that if I could take a dump on you as you squaeled, I
would!

Once again everyone else got it. You know, in the lines you just
deleted. LMAO.

--------------------------------

Re: Dancer-haters

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > Oops little dicky! Weren't you just making a case why

it

> wasn't good to answer every post?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I just pointed out that you did it. You must be a
little sensitive, is that the alcohol again?
> > > >
> > > > A denial AND a lie all in one sentence!
> > >
> > > If what I said is a lie, then prove it. Show us a reference.
Must be the alcohol that makes you believe no one can read.

> > At this point tonight by your being so ruffled by the truth,
> there's no need to prove anything more than you're doing right

now.

>
> Tranlation: Rob tried to find a reference but got lost in the
> archives. So, he cranked up his babbler and is trying to bluff

his

> way out. Sorry, but it won't work this time any better than it

has

> all of the other times you've tried this.

Bluff? HA! I have as much a need to bluff you as I do spanking the
Queen when she claims she won! You deny, you lie, you make believe.
It's all over the archives.

Still babbling ... Did Robbie present any proof? Nope. Need I say
more ...

> > YOU are your
> > own worst enemy, and YOU are the reference you're looking for.
Live with it....but please don't die over it! I need a whipping

post!!

> The old babbler is still stuck. Maybe a little grease between the
> fingers will help.

Now wait a minute. My wife isn't all hagged out by casino trips and
as such, I certainly have no reason to grease my fingers. I see why
you do. The romance disappeared long ago, and now you stay together
through intimidation and a mutual addiction to casinos and

gambling.

A legacy to be proud of if there ever was one.

Let's see, which one of us visited a casino in the last two weeks?
Uh, that would be Rob. Once again, need I say more ...

----------------------------

Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > Of course you're rattled again, little dicky
> > > > >
> > > > > RIV. Pointing out your lies is quite fun.
> > > >
> > > > So you agree, you're very rattled and trying to make

believe

> it's fun. i can live with that.
> > >
> > > No you can't, because you, more than anyone, know the
frustration you feel every day as your read my posts.
> >
> > I can live with that too!

Nice that you admitted it.

The more you post the more I come
alive! It's not often that geek-haters get to romp & stomp on them
after high school days are done. Again, thank you God!

Back into his high school fantasy. You must have been abused quite a
bit. However, it was 40 years ago, get over it.

> Come on Robbie, grease that babbler. You haven't come up with a

new

> one in ages.

Why mess with a proven winner?

Da plane, da plane ... Check the scoreboard ... you're being shut
out.

> > > And all you've 'proved' is you're a dork. And stupid. and
blind. and one who works in a closed room of math models and geek-
expressions. And you're alone. Why, we all should only listen to

you

and not anyone else who says you're wrong, RIGHT?!! Now maybe you
know what a true vp-blind clown is, RIGHT? RIGHT!
  
> Didn't you mention "wordy" a bit ago? ... It's pretty obvious

who's

rattled here. Rob obviously choose not to respond to my points
below because he knows he can't refute the facts. How sweet

itis ...

> one problem with your obvious nervous reply....My words hit
> home and cause you trouble every time--

RIV.

> > >
> > > Yup, what hit home this time was your lack of words.

Absolutely

> no response to my factual statements.

> > But the facts are right there IN FRONT OF YOU, little dicky!
You've been made a fool of over and over and over. God bless the
world!!!

> More hollow sounding words as I continually provide references

and

> facts to refute all your lies. I hope you liked NGC regulation 5.

You can post those meaningless little prayers of yours all night
long. What's the difference---you don't know how to read them
anyway!

What an impotent reply. Still think you're winning?

> which is the prime objective of my existence here. The more I
write, as a true writer and not a wannabee trying to 'belong' like
you, the better!
  
> > > Then why didn't Rob write something in response to my facts?
Why did he choose to just babble away instead? You be the the judge.

> > I AM the judge....and jury. And to you, I'm your executioner

too!

> > Feel that knife called 'the truth'? Feel it going right thru

your

> > make believe heart? (I say make believe because no human heart
> could EVER treat a wife as disrespectful as you've done)!
>
> The wife babble again? You're not listening, son. You're making a
> complete fool out of yourself.

I don't THINK so little dicky, and from the sound of your deny

reply

you might just be holding together by a thread!

LMAO. You are getting totally thrashed and you have nowhere to go.
You've tried these hollow monkey boy responses before and it didn't
work any better then. Remember, you ended up running away and
sulking. It's going to happen again, because you have no weapons. All
you have is easily refuted lies and false claims.

>Try to catch on. After everyone sees these babbles a few hundred
times it has no effect. If you can't come up with anything new, you
are demonstrating a lack of creativity. Not to mention that your

con

has already been exposed. I think your new miidle name is very
relevant here.

Sorry, but I'm not with you here.

Boy, is that an understatement.

Maybe that's a good thing for you--
saves you getting blasted for a moment.

Adlads. A day late ... a dollar short. Remember now???

> > > > > I'll leave them here one more time to keep Robbie rattled.

> > > > Is that suppose to clarify anything other than you've given
up on this subject by not responding to anything?? When facing
> defeat, do it like a man instead of a weasel. C'mon....you're
almost dead! Show some dignity before you go!

> > > RIV. The words "not responding to anything" is exactly what

Rob

> > did. Rob's inner voice took this opportunity to point that out

to

> > > everyone. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > i've asked for you to show at least SOME dignity. I mean, I
really don't like stomping on a dead man (just a hurtin' one!).

> LMAO. Your words are dust. They've dried out and everyone can now
see what's behind them. A frustated bully who has met his match.

Now it's 'dust'! The words that 'don't affect him' are now 'dust'!!
Well, it's good to know he can't be 'affected' by them!!! HAHAHA!!!!

You already knew that ... but you have nothing else to offer. You
have no weapons, you have no facts, you have no logic. All you have
is your childhood fantasies of days long gone. Have I mentioned that
you need help?

Re: I'm Starting To Worry About The Denyer's Health

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

With the administered beating this nerd is absorbing, one might be
wondering just how much loss he can endure. Well, from my

experience

these jerks can absorb a HUGE amount of punishment, but this might

be

getting to be too much. I've noticed it takes the dicker twice as

long

to respond to my messages than it takes me to reply to his. One can
only imagine the misery he goes through in doing so. Sounds like

fun!

It is fun. I enjoy making you look foolish. There's no way you can
perpetrate your con with your impotence exposed for everyone to see.

One thing I don't want to see is the dicker getting sick - or worse.
That would be awful. There'd be nothing to look forward to on here

any

more. I enjoy verbally abusing the geek, making him feel smaller

than

he degenerated into when he allowed pathological gambling to take

over

his (and unfortunately, her) lives, and it's just sooo precious
watching him come unraveled over not understanding modern technology
associated within his own geek-field when he was employed. And just
where else can you find someone so willing to deny and lie about
everything he makes himself look foolish about? I need him for

laughs.

(insert thankful prayer).

It was nice of RIV to give us some more insight into what is going on
in Robbie's life. RIV, keep up the good work.

---------------------

Re: Now Isn't This Special.....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

From a post tonight on vpFREE-----------
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Overall for the trip we didn't hit any royals and finished down
about $2800. However, the $165 cashback from the Venetian and $150
sweepstakes win did bring this down to under $2500 in absolute cash.
Just about where I would expect to be with 100K coin-in and no

royal.

rhizome"
----------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the math came through for these people, yesiree! Just where
they 'expected to be' after $100k of "playing like the addicts do"!

And

no doubt they bought every book by Jean Scott, Dan Paymar, and all

of

Bob Dancer's strategy cards just so it wouldn't be a surprise when

it

happened the way the math predicted it would! But gee, they got

their

cash back and hit the sweepstakes BIG time, didn't they...... And

you

know what? If they get a chance to chat with any of the gurus or

Mr.

Wizards....even our own little dicky....there really will be no

problem

after all. If they can somehow manufacture that they played
in 'positive EV' situations, then they've lost absolutely nothing.

What

they did, by golly, is WIN because they 'played with an edge'! Now

all

they gotta do is figure out how to deposit all those phantom bucks.

At

1.5%, that's 1500 of them! But you know what? Little dicky can help
them there too. He makes deposits 'all the time'!!

I think Rob's jealousy here is very telling. An individual posts an
honest account of his trip which resulted in a loss. Everyone has had
losses and this is nothing special. However, Rob, who has claimed
that APers never admit losing, now comes unglued when a loss is
reported.

Come on Rob, admit it. You are so jealous of APers that you will say
anything ... even if it contradicts what you've previously said over
and over again.

It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that he mentions

my name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine all of these
threads together to limit the number of items posted. They're all
pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself so often.

But little dicky, I thought you KNEW this was all about humiliating
such a farce as you! And admit it, the only readon you pasted all the
posts is so you could delete as much ridicule and truths about you as
possible. C'mon....play fair............

I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies in Rob's
posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his lastest trip

to Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime he
gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this, if
you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the goal?

If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.

Probably a vaild question----if you were talking to a fellow addict!
People who raise goals for no reason have little discipline and fall
more into you and your wife's sad category than anywhere else. I play
only for goals and these days only when there's something my children
may want.

I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never responded to

this question so let me ask him again. How can you have only 8 losses
at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session losses overall?
Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just didn't think through
this lie. Of course, this calls into question EVERYTHING that Rob has
ever claimed. If he will lie about his gambling record here, how can
anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the truth.

Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-up me you
just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already completely
covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment before, but you're
asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or close to that)
at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read Rule #6 again from my
strategy page. It'll clearly tell you why your 'impossible dream' is
now just another nightmare for you to wallow thru all night long.

Re: Little dicky's Shattered Life....

Yes, I like that one!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > I've figured out why my pal is so misled and
unknowledgeable in the world of the modern programmer, and why he

can't listen to or even hear logic. He's still embedded into the days
where he used punch-out cards to program the computers!

>
> > > > Sorry to blow your bubble again moron, but punch cards went
out
> > in the 60s. Sure, a few technically backwards organization

still

> used them (probably where Rob came up with this).
>
> > > HAHAHA!! A RATTLED LITTLE DICKY isn't the WORD for what he

must

> be going through with this shot! Goddam---right to the HEART!!
> Imagine what would happen if I opened my eyes and fired away!!
> (Now onto the neurotic try at 'setting the record straight' so in
> > his mind, he won't be able to believe anyone's laughing at him.)
>
> > Are you through babbling yet? I guess Rob must have thought

punch

> > cards were used into the 90s. Is he lost or what?
>
> Doesn't much matter what I think, little dicky.

I agree with that statement completely.

> What I KNOW is what's
> important here, and I know you are RATTLED beyond your normal
limit.
> Why else would you be so persistent on telling us meaningless
> nonsense about the punch cards you're so infatuated with??

Nice try dipstick. I made you look like a fool for bringing up

punch cards. It's been obvious for a long time that you are complete
techno-weenie. This just adds more evidence.

When "back in the day" means punchcards for you and that's what you
base all your illogic and denial on here, then your meals will
forever consist of crow.
  

> > > >>However, I started using
> > > > dependent computer terminals in the early 70s and was using
> both networked PCs and UNIX workstations at the time I retired. I
> know you won't understand any of this, but others will.
> > >
> > > I don't know about laughing any more here, because I've

laughed so much I now have to THROW UP!!

> >
> > Nice try,

I know, but aren't they all.....

but you've once again shown you have no comprehension

of the real world. Of course, RIV has been telling us that all
along. Now we get to see it from Robbie himself.
>
> You have no mercy. You want me to DIE LAUGHING at your damage
> control!?

Hollow words. Do you still believe that no one can read? You

brought up punch cards, you look foolish. How's that rotary phone of
yours?

You know, I actually stopped laughing while you went on another
gambling binge, but now my side has to be stitched up AGAIN!!!
HHHAAA HA HA HA!!!!!
   

> > > > One dimensional....B&W.....and too simple for words. And

why doesn't he want to realize the technological advances

> > > that have been made? Obviously, the girls in the short skirts
who sat nearby and punched the cards all day long! I really should
> start charging for this stuff!
   
> > > > You already got paid more than this drivel is worth. ZERO.
> > > > PS. I'll correct your spelling for you in the subject line.
> > I can only imagine the embarrassment that would cause Rob to
babble on like this. We've already seen many times that his

frustration is directly correlated to his babbling. Of course,
everyone can see why Rob is resorting to trash talking. I've proved
him to be a LAF and a con man. His back is against the wall.

> Yes, that's some wall behind me there, yesiree! Babbling/trash-
> talking....oh my, these are the main issues here now that little
> dicky can't find his way home to comfy land. Yikes!

RIV. Still works for me. By the way, Are your rabbit ears still
bringing in good TV reception?

What? Now you're saying I have "rabbit ears" on Easter sunday??

-------

Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

But isn't it good to see those truthful but to some, hurtful, words
once again.....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > Give it up, little dicky. Over and over again you're out-
classed and made the fool of your own field. Trying to make

yourself feel better about all the sense here is superficial and will
be rendered useless just as soon as you read my reply. I sense you're
geek-armor weakening as we speak. Oh, can it EVER get any better
than this?!! When will we have the chance again to watch as little
dicky wallows away in self-sympathy?? And I though pulling the nerds'
pants down in the girl's high school gym was the epic moment in my
life!

> > >
> > > > I see that Rob's "wordiness" continues.
> > >
> > > Yup--by a professional writer to boot! The more I can lay on
you the better the day....and night!
> >
> > Oh, haven't you been sleeping well? That's too bad, I suppose
> having your con exposed will do that. All you need to do is go

get some help and you'll feel much better.

>
> I don't need sleep when I'm having THIS much fun! I could stay
awake forever if I was able to write you into the ground as often

as I'm doing tonight!!

I think it's pretty clear that all these words ... babbled in every
post ... claiming to have so much fun ... is a little too forced.
Could it be that this is just another attempt to try and look good

in the face of overwhelming defeat? Rob's Little Bighorn.

HAHA! Watching your armor deteriorate is only the BEGINNING of the
fun!
  

> > > >Did I mention that is a sure sign he has been rattled?
> > >
> > > Kind of a wee bit too late to wear that comfy blankey to bed,
> > little dicky. You've been spanked so hard MY HAND is red!

> > It's never too late for the truth. You should know that by now.
>
> Now you're speaking my language. Too late though. Both my hand

and your butt are RED!

So, Rob wants to touch my butt. I knew he was jealous, but this is

a little extreme.

A spanking's a spanking!
  

> > > >Yup, poor Robbie, repeating the same insults over and over
> again. Is he this repetitive in real life?
>
> >And loving every repeat, because just as we used to kick the

nerds down when they tried so hard to get up, it's just as satisfying
now....even more so, as I get to watch a live nerd suffer over and
over again before my very eyes. Thank you God!

> > Notice the dramatic increase in words. A sure sign I called

this one correctly. Not only that, but he just repeated his standard
BS again. How sweet it is ...

>
> You're right--I'm really on a roll tonight and lovin every minute
of it! What a way to end a great day! Nerd-whacking!!

The repetitive, hollow words continue. Each time he demonstrates

his obvious frustration. How sweet it is ...

Yes, it is VERY sweet getting in this many shots. and i thought the
fun of the holiday was over!!
  

> > > > I bet Rob really like the one about buying property in
> Louisiana.
> > >
> > > I'll wait and see if optdouble can respond, but don't count

on it. He claims to be a software engineer, yet, he doesn't
understand that "secondary programming" and a "second program" are
two entirely different things. Secondary programming is ANY code
inserted to modify the behavior of the RNG.
  

> > > Isn't that just like a nervous ranting geek to make believe

he knows things someone else doesn't--

> >
> > I think your shill has been uncovered, little man. Opt-shill

goes

> on about ALL sorts of special programming that would take lots of
> extra memory. I guess he thinks IGT is in the business to lose
money
> just to provide special help to the casinos. He also failed to
> explain why the NGC, which reviews every line of code, would
somehow
> miss all of this special programming.
>
> Yada yada yada on and on and on about his saving face. He just

HAD

to
> get these words of geek-wisdom in or else he would toss and turn
all
> night long!

It appears Robbie faces another sleepless night. Did you see him
refute anything I stated? Nope. Once again the facts are little
Robbie's downfall. How sweet it is ...

You mean refute what you refute? You have no facts, so why waste
time? Optdouble's obviously bothered you with his logic and you sit
there stymied and irritated. All that does is give me a warm and
fuzzy that you are left speechless again. Yummy!
  

> > > and/or tries to correct someone with BS!
> > > Where would this nerd be without his ability to 'set his

record

> > > straight' which he so neurotically needs to do every time
someone
> > > comes on and shows a tad bit of intelligence that goes beyond
his
> > > archaic knowledge base? How he must HURT inside.....
>
> > Yup, your shill sure is "intelligent", I'd think even you would
> have been embarrassed by his ridiculous statements.
>
> I don't really know what a 'shill' is, but I'm betting it's some
sort
> of imaginary thing having to do with gambling, since gambling
> controls every aspect of your life.

(and needless to say little dicky was in a hurry here too)

--------------------

Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > Thanks, Rob. Finally a clear explanation that we can

all understand. Although we will be probably see a bunch of
replies talking about how this is "illegal" and "wouldn't be
allowed".
  

> > > > That's because it IS illegal ... not to mention, casinos

have nothing to gain. They already have the edge in almost all

games. Why would they risk losing their lucrative gambling business?
>
> > > Blah blah blah---same old rant with the same old tune of geek-
> > denial attached.
> >
> > Looks like the facts did it again. Stopped Robbie cold.
>
> Brrrrr....yup it's really cold here in Phoenix tonight! If little
> dicky had any facts for a change I'd dance the jig. All I see is
> whining like "gee, it's illegal because I don't do it"

and "casinos have nothing to gain because I don't get that part of
it". Truly, a weeny whiner!

Still out in the cold, little man? How does it feel to have your
idiotic claims shown impotent time and again?

It might be a tad more meaningful if you supplied some reason and a
little less whining. You've got nowhere to go but up here anyway.

Do you really trust the casinos that much??? After
minimally complying with the regulations, you should expect them to
try and take every dollar that they can in any way humanly possible.

Well, first off, this would NOT be "minimally complying with
> the regulations", it would be breaking the law.

Which law---geek law?
  
NV law that doesn't allow machines to be modifed.

> That's exactly why they arrive in true form just as I've

explained with the facts a thousand times. What? Doesn't fit into
little dicky's pipeline mind? Must be wrong!! Geek-law is right and

everyone else is wrong!!

Everyone else (except you and opt-shill) can read the law and

accept it. If they've been in casinos very often they've probably
even seen techs changing paytables/games/etc. The machine is shut
down and the process takes quite a bit of time. Next, I suppose,
you'll claim they do this all for show. LMAO.

I know you're digging for more info here because this knowledge
interests you. You might even pick up some of that longed for info if
you'd let me explain the Nv. contract to you. You only have two
shades--Black & White. The contract is multi-colored for several
purposes that you'll never get with the blinders planted firmly onto
your face. And what does the tekkies working on machines have to do
with the way they are programmed in cycles at the factory?
  

> > > you've already been instructed on how the
> > > contracts are written, you don't want a personal education
class on contract law, and you clearly couldn't live with yourself

if you ever came to the understanding that what you believe in is not
the way it is. Does the words 'little dicky's foolish' make any sense
to you??

> >
> > Still no contracts involved, LAFman. Just NGC regs. However,

this is an entirely different regulation (reg 5). The one that
doesn't allow casinos to change any programming in the machines
without NGC approval. Let's hear you lie your way of of this one.

>
> Right on cue! I've directed little dicky to look up more of the
state CONTRACT and he does EXACTLY as I tricked him into doing--

flops out another regulation from the CONTRACT. And this gets
funnier. Then he proceeds to step into it BIG TIME! He makes believe
everyone against his geek-logic is sayiung that the machines are
changed after they arrive at the casinos!! Can anyone possibly be
more thick??

ROTFLMAO. Did Rob actually think anyone would read his mighty

babble and believe it? All he did was deny what is clearly written in
black and white. Rob, you're not doing too well here. Maybe you
should rethink your entire approach. Just tell everyone the dog ate
all the NGC regs and made them invalid.

Remember those blinders and remember the colors. And just now dense
can you be not to understand that the regs are included in a
CONTRACT?? How can you possibly expect even your 2 fans here to
continue believing anything you spew??? I try to play fair, but gee
whiz--you give me soooo much of an advantage!
    

> > > I mean, who do you think is contributing the money to build

all of those huge casino hotels anyways....

> > > >
> > > > The players playing without an edge. Yup, the players who
play
> > > > roulette, craps, BJ, stud, etc.; the players crowding into
the
> > > poker rooms where the casinos takes a % of every pot; the
players
> > > hitting the slots; the clueless VP players. I think we're up

to

> > about 99% of casino customers. Was this really supposed to be

an

> > > intelligent statement?
> > >
> > > There it is again....it's "the other guys" who lose and not
> little dicky or any of the 'gurus'. Ho-Hum.... So wordy, yet so
> nerdy....
>
> > So, you think these players all win? How do the casinos stay in
> > business?
>
> Only a few intelligent players win, bozo. Like myself, Bob, and a
> handful of people who write to me that all use some variation of

my play strategies.

Save your watch ...

???

> Fools like you & the gurus have no chance without
> continuous extreme luck and you know it. The real money never
leaves with you. You make a bundle in 'phantom bucks' because you

play like frenzied addicts, but how many times are you laughed at
when you walk in the bank with a theoretical deposit??!!

Another scramble, Robbie? This is getting beyond OBVIOUS. I have

you

so nailed at every turn that all you can do is babble. By the way,
did you get your babbler tuned up? While you're at it, I would also
suggest a brain overhaul. Your current one is leaking logic all

over the place.

Silly, maybe self-entertaining....but as usual, a simple cover to
that which you are in extreme denial about.

> > > > > So, basically a bunch of "advantage players" playing the
same
> > > > machine more or less ensures that the number of Royal

Flushes

> will be LESS than expected almost all of the time since the

machine

> will not be making enough money to get into a mode where "hot

cycle

> corrections" are needed.
>
> > > > Did I mention clueless?
>
> > > I certainly have, many times, and you fit that bill like a

tee.

>
> > Poor try Robbie. This guy's just another yahoo who believes the
> > machines are controlled externally. Even you know better than
that.
>
> Externally? Now you making THAT up too?? Are you THAT sore about
> losing here??

Sorry, to hit you with the facts again, but your shill claimed that
the machines would be set to pay back less during promotions. That

is called an "external switch". So, are you supporting this position?

Are you claiming to be just as idiotic?

I don't have info on this new point other than to NOT believe you,
because that's always the safe bet. One thing i do know. I watched a
vp tournament in Laughlin 2 years ago, and the Royals were coming out
as fast as R,W, & B 7's in slot machine tournaments. How'd they do
that?
   

> > > > > In other words, enough idiot players would be needed to
> > > > > make the required profit on the machine to ensure that
enough Royal Flushes could be "allowed".
>
> > > > I wonder if this guy even understands that this is beyond
> > secondary programming. This would require throwing out the RNG
> altogether.
>
More evidence that you've never kept up with modern technology in

your own sorry field. Do you have to keep embarrassing me, as your
sponsor here??

> >
> > Your repetitive words are getting more hollow all the time.
Please explain how the NGC code reviewers would miss all this extra

code.

And who says it's "missed"? You're even misleading yourself
now....incredible!

> Please...PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself! It embarrasses me too
you know, as your sponsor here!

LMAO. Put a direct question to Robbie and watch him scramble.

Whatsa matter, little man. The truth hitting you where it hurts?

As your sponsor here, you should care just a little more than that.
   

> > This would also suggest that somebody would be a COMPLETE IDIOT
to
> keep playing a machine after it just hit a Royal Flush,
> > correct? Because the machine would surely be overcorrected
after
> that point, and would probably be starting a bunch of new cold
cycles.
>
> > > > So, I guess the two times I hit RFs within 15 minutes of

each

> > other on the same machine is impossible. I'd better go back and
> check those W2Gs and see if they are real.
>
> > > You just proved another point. That machine was in a hot

cycle that was required to correct it's hold percentage upwards.
Thank you.

>
> > After giving me a double RF? Yup. That's right. This machine

pays double on RFs. 4.4% of the total payout. You better head back to

> the drawing board, your lies are easily dismissed.
>
> Oh, so now you add THAT in only after you struggled? And leave it
to you to make up that 4.4% number. It paid you what it paid you

that night and it had nothing to do with theory. You can't even enjoy

the times you win because you're so intertwined with analyzing

every aspect of the math models. No wonder you lead such a sour life!

Boy is Rob ever scrambling bigtime. Once again he can't respond to

a factual statement.

If ever you provided a fact to some off-the-wall assertion you've
made, I'll eat my hat on top of the Stratosphere.
   

This is getting hilarious. Rob must not know that everytime a big
storm passes near Louisiana a part of the coast is reclaimed by the
gulf. I thought this story was shown so many times last summer that
EVERYONE would know it by now. I guess Robbie missed it ... like so
many other things that pass him by.

Only gambling addicts paid attention to all that nonsense last
summer, for fear that their favorite machines might not be available
on their next pass thru while on a phoney vacation. The rest of us
had our own lives to attend to.
   

> > > > > Also, it would stand to reason that correct "casino
strategy"
> > for
> > > > VP machines would be to take over a machine which has just
> busted
> > > out somebody after they placed a decent amount of credits on
it,
> in
> > > the theory that they have used up a lot of the cold cycles,

and

> the
> > > machine is then theoretically nearer to a corrective hot

cycle.

> > >
> > > > I doubt that this is Robbie. Even he can see how idiotic

this

> > > sounds. Did I mention clueless?
>
> > > Is that supposed to be a reply--or are you at a loss for

words

> > > again?? At least you didn't make me laugh here too!
> >
> > 18 words this time ... A new record for you. I made my points

and

> you looked foolish trying to refute the facts with nothing but
> idiotic babbling. How sweet it is ...
>
> HAHAHA! I've even got you analyzing posts now! You are sooooo my
> puppet. and being your own worst enemy is an added bonus that I
thank
> the Lord for every moment I'm on here!

Yup. You've got me right where I want you. Good job. I still love

the

one about multiple cold cycles. A mathematical impossibility and
Robbie keeps uttering it over and over again.

Impossible to you but true to the rest of the world. Did you ever
think that might be the reason you're wearing that Dunce Cap every
waking hour?

--------------------------

Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > > > I know I know, you depend on these long, messy

threads

to
> > try and confuse anyone who reads them....which is not the norm
for
> a geek--we all see how nervous you are in your quest to make
yourself
> feel at least half-confident after you've been flogged in public
yet
> again. I suggest for that good feeling of being superior, bo on
back
> in and boss your wife around again. That'll get your confidence
back
> up there, for sure! Make believe she's me and it'll climb that

much

> faster. Go ahead---give it your best shot like you do all the

time!

> Never mind you've never had the upper hand with me. Just "make
> believe" (now that's not hard for a pathological addict todo, is
> it???) you're pushing a REAL MAN around and you'll be set free!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, who is the wordy one? It looks like I hit a nerve
> again.
> > > Rob obviously thought that posting a response, with the proof
of
> > his
> > > > > lies deleted, that he could make it go away. LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > That hurt, didn't it!
> > > >
> > > > No, not in the least. I got a good laugh at all of your
> babbling.
> > >
> > > That REALLY hurt, didn't it!
> >
> > Is your babbler stuck? Did I mention repetitive?
>
> the more you read it the more you get an itch you'll never be

able

to
> scratch. Am I THE MASTER or what!

THE MASTER liar. That is exactly what you are. It's nice to see we
agree on something.

By your irritation, even calomine lotion won't help!
  

> > > It's OK, little dicky. I understand your
> > > pain here, seeing that you realize other people can see how

you

> > boss the wife around and all. You can use my nanky. And good.
> that's the sign of a direct hit. Whenever you try to weasel out

of

a
> topic you simply post RIV and hope it all just goes away.
> >
> > LMAO. I really think his babbler IS stuck. Same words over and
over
> > again. No facts, no logic, just the same old drivel. Rob, I

think

> you better take that babbler in for some repairs. Maybe a 2

million

> > babble checkup.
>
> Kinda hard to diffuse the bomb I set about you abusing your wife
day
> in and day out, huh?? Just gets a little under your skin, right
> little dicky??

This too funny. This is RIV in high gear. Just who do you think
people would believe is an abuser? A cyberbully like you or a
logical, fact bearer like myself? ROTFLMAO.

"Fact bearer"?!!! HHHHAAAAAA ahhaaa ah ahah hahaha!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe
if you didn't LIE so much little dicky, you might get your two fans
to support you some more!!

> > > > No, everyone skims over your babbling so easily. All those
> words just go down the tube without having there intended effect.
> > >
> > > Here's a flash, little dicky....they're all for only YOU!! I
> > already see your pain here and you never were any good at

hiding

> it. So why not let's SHARE it!!
> >
> > Yawn. Robbie pretty much just admitted to being a complete

moron.

> > Everyone else can see your words never effect me.
>
> Taken from the sticks & stones mentality from growing up! Tey I

saw

> you geeks a bit differently. You were stomped on, called names,
> knocked down, you got up, we knocked you fools down again, and
> eventually you started crying out "MOMMY, MOMMY...the cool guys

are

> hurting me!!" You're really doing the same thing here. If nothing
> affected you you'd simply walk away and not have any need to say

a

> thing. But you're hurtin little dicky, and the pain is REAL!

RIV. Robbie was never a cool guy. His continual mention of his
childhood days makes that abundantly clear. I guess he thinks that

by asserting he was someone, it will change history ... is this guy
ever going to grow up?

Prove that 'assertion' that i was 'never a cool guy'!! Load up that
geek-gun and fire away!!!

> > It's your middle name, Rob Adlads Singer. And, just another
reason
> > for your jealousy.
>
> Now who in the name of Pete is that!? I swear, you are sooo corny
and
> such a nerd that if I could take a dump on you as you squaeled, I
> would!

Once again everyone else got it. You know, in the lines you just
deleted. LMAO.

??? I guess you got tired here.

--------------------------------
Re: Dancer-haters
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > YOU are your
> > > own worst enemy, and YOU are the reference you're looking

for.

> Live with it....but please don't die over it! I need a whipping
post!!
>
> > The old babbler is still stuck. Maybe a little grease between

the

> > fingers will help.
>
> Now wait a minute. My wife isn't all hagged out by casino trips

and

> as such, I certainly have no reason to grease my fingers. I see

why

> you do. The romance disappeared long ago, and now you stay

together

> through intimidation and a mutual addiction to casinos and
gambling.
> A legacy to be proud of if there ever was one.

Let's see, which one of us visited a casino in the last two weeks?
Uh, that would be Rob. Once again, need I say more ...

May I point out that I didn't drag my wife along with, and neither
was she wanting to go to a casino?? Or how about I might have played
45 minutes and left?? Now let's compare that to 3 hours a day all
while blaming an addict wife for making you go!! NEXT!!!

----------------------------
Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
Cycles

> The more you post the more I come
> alive! It's not often that geek-haters get to romp & stomp on

them after high school days are done. Again, thank you God!

Back into his high school fantasy. You must have been abused quite

a bit. However, it was 40 years ago, get over it.

Back in my day it was a good piece of ass that brought tears to our
eyes. For you, it was guys like me that made you whimper and cry. and
don'tcha know it....I'm STILL doing it TODAY!!
  

> > Come on Robbie, grease that babbler. You haven't come up with a
new
> > one in ages.
>
> Why mess with a proven winner?

Da plane, da plane ... Check the scoreboard ... you're being shut
out.

I certainly can't compete with THAT corn!
  

> > > > And all you've 'proved' is you're a dork. And stupid. and
> blind. and one who works in a closed room of math models and geek-
> expressions. And you're alone. Why, we all should only listen to
you
> and not anyone else who says you're wrong, RIGHT?!! Now maybe you
> know what a true vp-blind clown is, RIGHT? RIGHT!
>
> > Didn't you mention "wordy" a bit ago? ... It's pretty obvious
who's
> rattled here. Rob obviously choose not to respond to my points
> below because he knows he can't refute the facts. How sweet
itis ...
>
> > one problem with your obvious nervous reply....My words hit
> > home and cause you trouble every time--

>
> > which is the prime objective of my existence here. The more I
> write, as a true writer and not a wannabee trying to 'belong'

like

> you, the better!
>
> > > > Then why didn't Rob write something in response to my

facts?

> Why did he choose to just babble away instead? You be the the

judge.

>
> > > I AM the judge....and jury. And to you, I'm your executioner
too!
> > > Feel that knife called 'the truth'? Feel it going right thru
your
> > > make believe heart? (I say make believe because no human

heart

> > could EVER treat a wife as disrespectful as you've done)!
> >
> > The wife babble again? You're not listening, son. You're making

a

> > complete fool out of yourself.
>
> I don't THINK so little dicky, and from the sound of your deny
reply
> you might just be holding together by a thread!

LMAO. You are getting totally thrashed and you have nowhere to go.
You've tried these hollow monkey boy responses before and it didn't
work any better then. Remember, you ended up running away and
sulking. It's going to happen again, because you have no weapons.

All you have is easily refuted lies and false claims.

I've got the BIG advantage here....YOU have to look that poor woman
in the eyes every day and think of what a messed-up retirement you've
made for her because of problem gambling. Then you've got to face
yourself, if you can ever do it again.
  

> > > i've asked for you to show at least SOME dignity. I mean, I
> really don't like stomping on a dead man (just a hurtin' one!).
>
> > LMAO. Your words are dust. They've dried out and everyone can

now see what's behind them. A frustated bully who has met his match.

>
> Now it's 'dust'! The words that 'don't affect him' are

now 'dust'!! Well, it's good to know he can't be 'affected' by
them!!! HAHAHA!!!!

You already knew that ... but you have nothing else to offer. You
have no weapons, you have no facts, you have no logic. All you have
is your childhood fantasies of days long gone. Have I mentioned

that you need help?

Re: I'm Starting To Worry About The Denyer's Health

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
>
> With the administered beating this nerd is absorbing, one might

be wondering just how much loss he can endure. Well, from my

experience these jerks can absorb a HUGE amount of punishment, but

this might be getting to be too much. I've noticed it takes the
dicker twice as long to respond to my messages than it takes me to
reply to his. One can only imagine the misery he goes through in
doing so. Sounds like fun!

It is fun. I enjoy making you look foolish. There's no way you can
perpetrate your con with your impotence exposed for everyone to see.

It certainly is as I've said, and it'll just keep getting better as
long as you don't pop thru your roof with the high blood pressure.
The truth always finds it's mark, and it found you long ago here. My
job is to keep wailing away at you until you admit your a fool
gambler wqho's cursed his former loving wife with the same disease.

> One thing I don't want to see is the dicker getting sick - or

worse.That would be awful. There'd be nothing to look forward to on
here anymore. I enjoy verbally abusing the geek, making him feel
smaller thanhe degenerated into when he allowed pathological gambling
to take overhis (and unfortunately, her) lives, and it's just sooo
preciouswatching him come unraveled over not understanding modern
technologyassociated within his own geek-field when he was employed.
And justwhere else can you find someone so willing to deny and lie
abouteverything he makes himself look foolish about? I need him for
laughs.(insert thankful prayer).

It was nice of RIV to give us some more insight into what is going

on in Robbie's life. RIV, keep up the good work.

What else could you say?

---------------------
Re: Now Isn't This Special.....
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> From a post tonight on vpFREE-----------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "Overall for the trip we didn't hit any royals and finished down
> about $2800. However, the $165 cashback from the Venetian and $150
> sweepstakes win did bring this down to under $2500 in absolute

cash.Just about where I would expect to be with 100K coin-in and no

royal.
> rhizome"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the math came through for these people, yesiree! Just

where they 'expected to be' after $100k of "playing like the addicts
do"! And no doubt they bought every book by Jean Scott, Dan Paymar,
and all of Bob Dancer's strategy cards just so it wouldn't be a
surprise when it happened the way the math predicted it would! But
gee, they got their cash back and hit the sweepstakes BIG time,
didn't they...... And you know what? If they get a chance to chat
with any of the gurus or Mr. Wizards....even our own little
dicky....there really will be no problem after all. If they can
somehow manufacture that they played in 'positive EV' situations,
then they've lost absolutely nothing. What they did, by golly, is WIN
because they 'played with an edge'! Now all they gotta do is figure
out how to deposit all those phantom bucks. At 1.5%, that's 1500 of
them! But you know what? Little dicky can help them there too. He
makes deposits 'all the time'!!

I think Rob's jealousy here is very telling. An individual posts an
honest account of his trip which resulted in a loss. Everyone has

had losses and this is nothing special. However, Rob, who has claimed

that APers never admit losing, now comes unglued when a loss is
reported.

AHAHAH HA HA HA!! I knew you couldn't let that one die little dicky!
You skipped the point and are now caught again--gee, that's starting
to sound like a broken record about you. This fool poster has been so
overwhelmingly misled by the gurus and math idiots, that he now
thinks it's allright to lose because "that's what the math predicted
would happen with no royals"!! If I though he could be saved I'd
write him a personal message. But he obviously clings to the Queen's
baloney and Dancer's and yours and Paymars etc. etc., and he'll be a
loser all his life like the rest of his mentors are.

Come on Rob, admit it. You are so jealous of APers that you will

say anything ... even if it contradicts what you've previously said
over and over again.

I wonder if any of that'll ever happen.....

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that he

mentions

my name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine all of these
threads together to limit the number of items posted. They're all
pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself so often.

But little dicky, I thought you KNEW this was all about humiliating
such a farce as you! And admit it, the only readon you pasted all

the

posts is so you could delete as much ridicule and truths about you

as

possible. C'mon....play fair............

If that was the reason then why didn't I delete it all or even 10%?
Sorry, little man, but your lies are easily refuted.

> I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies in Rob's
> posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his lastest trip
to Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime he
gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this,

if

you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the

goal?

> If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.

Probably a vaild question----if you were talking to a fellow

addict!

People who raise goals for no reason have little discipline and

fall

more into you and your wife's sad category than anywhere else. I

play

only for goals and these days only when there's something my

children

may want.

Sorry, Rob but you've claimed many times that discipline is a big
reason for your success. Now, you change tactics in mid-stream.
Discipline? You've got to be kidding. Not to mention, you drove all
the way over to Laughlin. If winning was such a sure thing, why not
stay an extra hour and get the whole $2500? Do you actually think
anyone will believe your excuse. ROTFLMAO.

> I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never responded to
this question so let me ask him again. How can you have only 8

losses

at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session losses

overall?

Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just didn't think through
this lie. Of course, this calls into question EVERYTHING that Rob

has

ever claimed. If he will lie about his gambling record here, how

can

anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the truth.

Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-up me you
just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already

completely

covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment before, but you're
asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or close to

that)

at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read Rule #6 again from my
strategy page. It'll clearly tell you why your 'impossible dream'

is

now just another nightmare for you to wallow thru all night long.

Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up with a
new lie.

Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As everyone
else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a progression
is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So, let's
take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at $25 and
7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to have
had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now a 259
total tries.

a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about 10% of
the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up another
lie.
b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly impossible. A
positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of winning
any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
hilarious.
c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of 31 losses
out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80% win rate
equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-40%. Not to
mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to cover the
losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more hilarious.
d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his current win
level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25 level if needed. Now,
I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In fact, out of 1000 sims
I didn't get a single win total equal to Rob's claims.

Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last one.

> Re: Little dicky's Shattered Life....

Yes, I like that one!

You like all of your lies.

>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > I've figured out why my pal is so misled and
> unknowledgeable in the world of the modern programmer, and why he
can't listen to or even hear logic. He's still embedded into the

days

where he used punch-out cards to program the computers!
> >
> > > > > Sorry to blow your bubble again moron, but punch cards

went

> out
> > > in the 60s. Sure, a few technically backwards organization
still
> > used them (probably where Rob came up with this).
> >
> > > > HAHAHA!! A RATTLED LITTLE DICKY isn't the WORD for what he
must
> > be going through with this shot! Goddam---right to the HEART!!
> > Imagine what would happen if I opened my eyes and fired away!!
> > (Now onto the neurotic try at 'setting the record straight' so

in

> > > his mind, he won't be able to believe anyone's laughing at

him.)

> >
> > > Are you through babbling yet? I guess Rob must have thought
punch
> > > cards were used into the 90s. Is he lost or what?
> >
> > Doesn't much matter what I think, little dicky.
>
> I agree with that statement completely.
>
> > What I KNOW is what's
> > important here, and I know you are RATTLED beyond your normal
> limit.
> > Why else would you be so persistent on telling us meaningless
> > nonsense about the punch cards you're so infatuated with??
>
> Nice try dipstick. I made you look like a fool for bringing up
punch cards. It's been obvious for a long time that you are

complete

techno-weenie. This just adds more evidence.

When "back in the day" means punchcards for you and that's what you
base all your illogic and denial on here, then your meals will
forever consist of crow.

You can't get out of your situation. You've shown just how out-of-
date with reality you are. How are all those corded phones in your
house doing?

> > > > >>However, I started using
> > > > > dependent computer terminals in the early 70s and was

using

> > both networked PCs and UNIX workstations at the time I retired.

I

> > know you won't understand any of this, but others will.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about laughing any more here, because I've
laughed so much I now have to THROW UP!!
> > >
> > > Nice try,

I know, but aren't they all.....

No, some of them are very poor tries. In everycase all they amount to
is a "try".

but you've once again shown you have no comprehension
> of the real world. Of course, RIV has been telling us that all
> along. Now we get to see it from Robbie himself.

I suppose Robbie still plays pong too ... on his B&W TV.

> >
> > You have no mercy. You want me to DIE LAUGHING at your damage
> > control!?

> Hollow words. Do you still believe that no one can read? You
brought up punch cards, you look foolish. How's that rotary phone

of

yours?

You know, I actually stopped laughing while you went on another
gambling binge, but now my side has to be stitched up AGAIN!!!
HHHAAA HA HA HA!!!!!

A very poor try. Just as hollow as before. PS. I still haven't
gambled since 4/4.

> > > > > One dimensional....B&W.....and too simple for words. And
why doesn't he want to realize the technological advances
> > > > that have been made? Obviously, the girls in the short

skirts

> who sat nearby and punched the cards all day long! I really

should

> > start charging for this stuff!
   
> > > > > You already got paid more than this drivel is worth.

ZERO.

> > > > > PS. I'll correct your spelling for you in the subject

line.

> > > I can only imagine the embarrassment that would cause Rob to
> babble on like this. We've already seen many times that his
frustration is directly correlated to his babbling. Of course,
everyone can see why Rob is resorting to trash talking. I've proved
him to be a LAF and a con man. His back is against the wall.

> > Yes, that's some wall behind me there, yesiree! Babbling/trash-
> > talking....oh my, these are the main issues here now that

little

> > dicky can't find his way home to comfy land. Yikes!
>
> RIV. Still works for me. By the way, Are your rabbit ears still
> bringing in good TV reception?

What? Now you're saying I have "rabbit ears" on Easter sunday??

Every morning.

> -------

> Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
> Cycles

But isn't it good to see those truthful but to some, hurtful, words
once again.....

Yes, I don't mind you being associated with a mathematical
impossibility.

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > Give it up, little dicky. Over and over again you're out-
> classed and made the fool of your own field. Trying to make
yourself feel better about all the sense here is superficial and

will

be rendered useless just as soon as you read my reply. I sense

you're

geek-armor weakening as we speak. Oh, can it EVER get any better
than this?!! When will we have the chance again to watch as little
dicky wallows away in self-sympathy?? And I though pulling the

nerds'

pants down in the girl's high school gym was the epic moment in my
life!
> > > >
> > > > > I see that Rob's "wordiness" continues.
> > > >
> > > > Yup--by a professional writer to boot! The more I can lay

on

> you the better the day....and night!
> > >
> > > Oh, haven't you been sleeping well? That's too bad, I suppose
> > having your con exposed will do that. All you need to do is go
get some help and you'll feel much better.
> >
> > I don't need sleep when I'm having THIS much fun! I could stay
> awake forever if I was able to write you into the ground as often
as I'm doing tonight!!
>
> I think it's pretty clear that all these words ... babbled in

every

> post ... claiming to have so much fun ... is a little too forced.
> Could it be that this is just another attempt to try and look

good

in the face of overwhelming defeat? Rob's Little Bighorn.

HAHA! Watching your armor deteriorate is only the BEGINNING of the
fun!

Let's keep track of how many facts Rob posts here. So far ... ZERO.
Of course, the rest is his normal babbling.

> > > > >Did I mention that is a sure sign he has been rattled?
> > > >
> > > > Kind of a wee bit too late to wear that comfy blankey to

bed,

> > > little dicky. You've been spanked so hard MY HAND is red!

> > > It's never too late for the truth. You should know that by

now.

> >
> > Now you're speaking my language. Too late though. Both my hand
and your butt are RED!
>
> So, Rob wants to touch my butt. I knew he was jealous, but this

is

a little extreme.

A spanking's a spanking!

A pervert is a pervert.

> > > > >Yup, poor Robbie, repeating the same insults over and over
> > again. Is he this repetitive in real life?
> >
> > >And loving every repeat, because just as we used to kick the
nerds down when they tried so hard to get up, it's just as

satisfying

now....even more so, as I get to watch a live nerd suffer over and
over again before my very eyes. Thank you God!

> > > Notice the dramatic increase in words. A sure sign I called
this one correctly. Not only that, but he just repeated his

standard

BS again. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > You're right--I'm really on a roll tonight and lovin every

minute

> of it! What a way to end a great day! Nerd-whacking!!
>
> The repetitive, hollow words continue. Each time he demonstrates
his obvious frustration. How sweet it is ...

Yes, it is VERY sweet getting in this many shots. and i thought the
fun of the holiday was over!!

Over and over again. All part of Robbie's Rule #6.

> > > > > I bet Rob really like the one about buying property in
> > Louisiana.
> > > >
> > > > I'll wait and see if optdouble can respond, but don't

count

on it. He claims to be a software engineer, yet, he doesn't
understand that "secondary programming" and a "second program" are
two entirely different things. Secondary programming is ANY code
inserted to modify the behavior of the RNG.
  
> > > > Isn't that just like a nervous ranting geek to make believe
he knows things someone else doesn't--
> > >
> > > I think your shill has been uncovered, little man. Opt-shill
goes
> > on about ALL sorts of special programming that would take lots

of

> > extra memory. I guess he thinks IGT is in the business to lose
> money
> > just to provide special help to the casinos. He also failed to
> > explain why the NGC, which reviews every line of code, would
> somehow
> > miss all of this special programming.
> >
> > Yada yada yada on and on and on about his saving face. He just
HAD
> to
> > get these words of geek-wisdom in or else he would toss and

turn

> all
> > night long!
>
> It appears Robbie faces another sleepless night. Did you see him
> refute anything I stated? Nope. Once again the facts are little
> Robbie's downfall. How sweet it is ...

You mean refute what you refute? You have no facts, so why waste
time? Optdouble's obviously bothered you with his logic and you sit
there stymied and irritated. All that does is give me a warm and
fuzzy that you are left speechless again. Yummy!

LMAO. You mean his claims of a backroom switch? I can just imagine
that gives you a "warm and fuzzy" one. Hollow doesn't even begin to
describe this statement ... All you have to do is read reg 5 and 14
to know that this is illegal.

http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm#regs

> > > > and/or tries to correct someone with BS!
> > > > Where would this nerd be without his ability to 'set his
record
> > > > straight' which he so neurotically needs to do every time
> someone
> > > > comes on and shows a tad bit of intelligence that goes

beyond

> his
> > > > archaic knowledge base? How he must HURT inside.....
> >
> > > Yup, your shill sure is "intelligent", I'd think even you

would

> > have been embarrassed by his ridiculous statements.
> >
> > I don't really know what a 'shill' is, but I'm betting it's

some

> sort
> > of imaginary thing having to do with gambling, since gambling
> > controls every aspect of your life.

(and needless to say little dicky was in a hurry here too)
> --------------------

I didn't care if you understood or not. Everyone else knows, which
puts you right where I want you.

> Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
> Cycles

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks, Rob. Finally a clear explanation that we can
all understand. Although we will be probably see a bunch of
replies talking about how this is "illegal" and "wouldn't be
allowed".
  
> > > > > That's because it IS illegal ... not to mention, casinos
have nothing to gain. They already have the edge in almost all
> games. Why would they risk losing their lucrative gambling

business?

> >
> > > > Blah blah blah---same old rant with the same old tune of

geek-

> > > denial attached.
> > >
> > > Looks like the facts did it again. Stopped Robbie cold.
> >
> > Brrrrr....yup it's really cold here in Phoenix tonight! If

little

> > dicky had any facts for a change I'd dance the jig. All I see

is

> > whining like "gee, it's illegal because I don't do it"
and "casinos have nothing to gain because I don't get that part of
it". Truly, a weeny whiner!

> Still out in the cold, little man? How does it feel to have your
> idiotic claims shown impotent time and again?

It might be a tad more meaningful if you supplied some reason and a
little less whining. You've got nowhere to go but up here anyway.

I guess Robbie must be fully in agreement with opt-shill that the
casinos violate reg 5. ROTFLMAO.

> Do you really trust the casinos that much??? After
> minimally complying with the regulations, you should expect them

to

> try and take every dollar that they can in any way humanly

possible.

>Well, first off, this would NOT be "minimally complying with
> > the regulations", it would be breaking the law.

>Which law---geek law?
  
> NV law that doesn't allow machines to be modifed.

(and needless to say little Robbie was in a hurry here too)

> > That's exactly why they arrive in true form just as I've
explained with the facts a thousand times. What? Doesn't fit into
little dicky's pipeline mind? Must be wrong!! Geek-law is right and
> everyone else is wrong!!

> Everyone else (except you and opt-shill) can read the law and
accept it. If they've been in casinos very often they've probably
even seen techs changing paytables/games/etc. The machine is shut
down and the process takes quite a bit of time. Next, I suppose,
you'll claim they do this all for show. LMAO.

I know you're digging for more info here because this knowledge
interests you. You might even pick up some of that longed for info

if

you'd let me explain the Nv. contract to you. You only have two
shades--Black & White. The contract is multi-colored for several
purposes that you'll never get with the blinders planted firmly

onto

your face. And what does the tekkies working on machines have to do
with the way they are programmed in cycles at the factory?

What is "multi-colored" about the word NO? It is so ammusing to see
Robbie scramble here. So, let's see him do it again ... Robbie
explain the "contract" that NV has with the casinos. ROTFLMAO.

> > > > you've already been instructed on how the
> > > > contracts are written, you don't want a personal education
> class on contract law, and you clearly couldn't live with

yourself

if you ever came to the understanding that what you believe in is

not

the way it is. Does the words 'little dicky's foolish' make any

sense

to you??
> > >
> > > Still no contracts involved, LAFman. Just NGC regs. However,
this is an entirely different regulation (reg 5). The one that
doesn't allow casinos to change any programming in the machines
without NGC approval. Let's hear you lie your way of of this one.
> >
> > Right on cue! I've directed little dicky to look up more of the
> state CONTRACT and he does EXACTLY as I tricked him into doing--
flops out another regulation from the CONTRACT. And this gets
funnier. Then he proceeds to step into it BIG TIME! He makes

believe

everyone against his geek-logic is sayiung that the machines are
changed after they arrive at the casinos!! Can anyone possibly be
more thick??

> ROTFLMAO. Did Rob actually think anyone would read his mighty
babble and believe it? All he did was deny what is clearly written

in

black and white. Rob, you're not doing too well here. Maybe you
should rethink your entire approach. Just tell everyone the dog ate
all the NGC regs and made them invalid.

Remember those blinders and remember the colors. And just now dense
can you be not to understand that the regs are included in a
CONTRACT??

Still waiting for you explain a "contract" where neither party signs
off on it. This is too funny.

How can you possibly expect even your 2 fans here to
continue believing anything you spew??? I try to play fair, but gee
whiz--you give me soooo much of an advantage!

Chucle, chuckle. I'm still waiting for you to explain a "contract"
between a state and a bunch of casinos where the casinos have no say
in the matter. Did I mention your scrambling ...

> > > > I mean, who do you think is contributing the money to build
all of those huge casino hotels anyways....
> > > > >
> > > > > The players playing without an edge. Yup, the players who
> play
> > > > > roulette, craps, BJ, stud, etc.; the players crowding

into

> the
> > > > poker rooms where the casinos takes a % of every pot; the
> players
> > > > hitting the slots; the clueless VP players. I think we're

up

to
> > > about 99% of casino customers. Was this really supposed to be
an
> > > > intelligent statement?
> > > >
> > > > There it is again....it's "the other guys" who lose and not
> > little dicky or any of the 'gurus'. Ho-Hum.... So wordy, yet so
> > nerdy....
> >
> > > So, you think these players all win? How do the casinos stay

in

> > > business?
> >
> > Only a few intelligent players win, bozo. Like myself, Bob, and

a

> > handful of people who write to me that all use some variation

of

my play strategies.
>
> Save your watch ...

???

Is that your definition of a contract? Not surprising ...

> > Fools like you & the gurus have no chance without
> > continuous extreme luck and you know it. The real money never
> leaves with you. You make a bundle in 'phantom bucks' because you
play like frenzied addicts, but how many times are you laughed at
when you walk in the bank with a theoretical deposit??!!

> Another scramble, Robbie? This is getting beyond OBVIOUS. I have
you
> so nailed at every turn that all you can do is babble. By the

way,

> did you get your babbler tuned up? While you're at it, I would

also

> suggest a brain overhaul. Your current one is leaking logic all
over the place.

Silly, maybe self-entertaining....but as usual, a simple cover to
that which you are in extreme denial about.

Still leaking. But I'm glad you admitted I was entertaining.

> > > > > > So, basically a bunch of "advantage players" playing

the

> same
> > > > > machine more or less ensures that the number of Royal
Flushes
> > will be LESS than expected almost all of the time since the
machine
> > will not be making enough money to get into a mode where "hot
cycle
> > corrections" are needed.
> >
> > > > > Did I mention clueless?
> >
> > > > I certainly have, many times, and you fit that bill like a
tee.
> >
> > > Poor try Robbie. This guy's just another yahoo who believes

the

> > > machines are controlled externally. Even you know better than
> that.
> >
> > Externally? Now you making THAT up too?? Are you THAT sore

about

> > losing here??
>
> Sorry, to hit you with the facts again, but your shill claimed

that

> the machines would be set to pay back less during promotions.

That

is called an "external switch". So, are you supporting this

position?

> Are you claiming to be just as idiotic?

I don't have info on this new point other than to NOT believe you,
because that's always the safe bet. One thing i do know. I watched

a

vp tournament in Laughlin 2 years ago, and the Royals were coming

out

as fast as R,W, & B 7's in slot machine tournaments. How'd they do
that?

So, you are claiming to believe there's an illegal external switch.
LMAO. By the way, if they put a tournament board into the machines
they can pay back whatever they want. These special boards also
usually have timers or countdown credits. Are you really this
clueless?

> > > > > > In other words, enough idiot players would be needed

to

> > > > > > make the required profit on the machine to ensure that
> enough Royal Flushes could be "allowed".
> >
> > > > > I wonder if this guy even understands that this is beyond
> > > secondary programming. This would require throwing out the

RNG

> > altogether.
> >
> More evidence that you've never kept up with modern technology in
your own sorry field. Do you have to keep embarrassing me, as your
sponsor here??

LMAO. You just supported a claim that hands were given out based on
some other criteria besides random. This is "throwing out the RNG". I
think embarrassing is too easy a word to describe your situation.

> > >
> > > Your repetitive words are getting more hollow all the time.
> Please explain how the NGC code reviewers would miss all this

extra

code.

And who says it's "missed"? You're even misleading yourself
now....incredible!

I see. The NGC makes regs that the employees purposedly ignore or are
instructed to ignore. And, no employee EVER admits this. LMAO. Did
the Easter bunny bring you this tale?

> > Please...PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself! It embarrasses me

too

> you know, as your sponsor here!
>
> LMAO. Put a direct question to Robbie and watch him scramble.
Whatsa matter, little man. The truth hitting you where it hurts?

As your sponsor here, you should care just a little more than that.

Hmmmm. You sponsor someone proving you are a LAF ... You're not too
bright are you? But then, we already knew that.

> > > This would also suggest that somebody would be a COMPLETE

IDIOT

> to
> > keep playing a machine after it just hit a Royal Flush,
> > > correct? Because the machine would surely be overcorrected
> after
> > that point, and would probably be starting a bunch of new cold
> cycles.
> >
> > > > > So, I guess the two times I hit RFs within 15 minutes of
each
> > > other on the same machine is impossible. I'd better go back

and

> > check those W2Gs and see if they are real.
> >
> > > > You just proved another point. That machine was in a hot
cycle that was required to correct it's hold percentage upwards.
Thank you.
> >
> > > After giving me a double RF? Yup. That's right. This machine
pays double on RFs. 4.4% of the total payout. You better head back

to

> > the drawing board, your lies are easily dismissed.
> >
> > Oh, so now you add THAT in only after you struggled? And leave

it

> to you to make up that 4.4% number. It paid you what it paid you
that night and it had nothing to do with theory. You can't even

enjoy

> the times you win because you're so intertwined with analyzing
every aspect of the math models. No wonder you lead such a sour

life!

>
> Boy is Rob ever scrambling bigtime. Once again he can't respond

to

a factual statement.

If ever you provided a fact to some off-the-wall assertion you've
made, I'll eat my hat on top of the Stratosphere.

So, you don't believe it's a double payabck RF? 8000 credits? Would a
picture suffice or do you need to see it yourself?

> This is getting hilarious. Rob must not know that everytime a big
> storm passes near Louisiana a part of the coast is reclaimed by

the

> gulf. I thought this story was shown so many times last summer

that

> EVERYONE would know it by now. I guess Robbie missed it ... like

so

> many other things that pass him by.

Only gambling addicts paid attention to all that nonsense last
summer, for fear that their favorite machines might not be

available

on their next pass thru while on a phoney vacation. The rest of us
had our own lives to attend to.

So, according to Rob, only gambling addicts watch the news. I suspect
a few folks out there might disagree with this idiotic assertion.
LMAO.

> > > > > > Also, it would stand to reason that correct "casino
> strategy"
> > > for
> > > > > VP machines would be to take over a machine which has

just

> > busted
> > > > out somebody after they placed a decent amount of credits

on

> it,
> > in
> > > > the theory that they have used up a lot of the cold cycles,
and
> > the
> > > > machine is then theoretically nearer to a corrective hot
cycle.
> > > >
> > > > > I doubt that this is Robbie. Even he can see how idiotic
this
> > > > sounds. Did I mention clueless?
> >
> > > > Is that supposed to be a reply--or are you at a loss for
words
> > > > again?? At least you didn't make me laugh here too!
> > >
> > > 18 words this time ... A new record for you. I made my points
and
> > you looked foolish trying to refute the facts with nothing but
> > idiotic babbling. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > HAHAHA! I've even got you analyzing posts now! You are sooooo

my

> > puppet. and being your own worst enemy is an added bonus that I
> thank
> > the Lord for every moment I'm on here!
>
> Yup. You've got me right where I want you. Good job. I still love
the
> one about multiple cold cycles. A mathematical impossibility and
> Robbie keeps uttering it over and over again.

Impossible to you but true to the rest of the world.

"Impossible ... but true" ... Only Rob could utter such an idiotic
line. This is getting good. I can't remember when little Robbie
uttered so MANY foolish comments one right after another.

Did you ever
think that might be the reason you're wearing that Dunce Cap every
waking hour?

ROTFLMAO. I wonder if Robbie even realizes he said the equivalent of
1+1=3, and then states I'm wearing a "Dunce Cap" by believing that
1+1=2. He really keeps 'em coming.

> --------------------------

> Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I know I know, you depend on these long, messy
threads
> to
> > > try and confuse anyone who reads them....which is not the

norm

> for
> > a geek--we all see how nervous you are in your quest to make
> yourself
> > feel at least half-confident after you've been flogged in

public

> yet
> > again. I suggest for that good feeling of being superior, bo on
> back
> > in and boss your wife around again. That'll get your

confidence

> back
> > up there, for sure! Make believe she's me and it'll climb that
much
> > faster. Go ahead---give it your best shot like you do all the
time!
> > Never mind you've never had the upper hand with me. Just "make
> > believe" (now that's not hard for a pathological addict todo,

is

> > it???) you're pushing a REAL MAN around and you'll be set free!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, who is the wordy one? It looks like I hit a

nerve

> > again.
> > > > Rob obviously thought that posting a response, with the

proof

> of
> > > his
> > > > > > lies deleted, that he could make it go away. LMAO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That hurt, didn't it!
> > > > >
> > > > > No, not in the least. I got a good laugh at all of your
> > babbling.
> > > >
> > > > That REALLY hurt, didn't it!
> > >
> > > Is your babbler stuck? Did I mention repetitive?
> >
> > the more you read it the more you get an itch you'll never be
able
> to
> > scratch. Am I THE MASTER or what!
>
> THE MASTER liar. That is exactly what you are. It's nice to see

we

> agree on something.

By your irritation, even calomine lotion won't help!

Robbie, the master liar. Kind of has a ring to it. At least Rob went
back to his normal babbling instead of uttering another ridiculous
claim.

> > > > It's OK, little dicky. I understand your
> > > > pain here, seeing that you realize other people can see how
you
> > > boss the wife around and all. You can use my nanky. And good.
> > that's the sign of a direct hit. Whenever you try to weasel out
of
> a
> > topic you simply post RIV and hope it all just goes away.
> > >
> > > LMAO. I really think his babbler IS stuck. Same words over

and

> over
> > > again. No facts, no logic, just the same old drivel. Rob, I
think
> > you better take that babbler in for some repairs. Maybe a 2
million
> > > babble checkup.
> >
> > Kinda hard to diffuse the bomb I set about you abusing your

wife

> day
> > in and day out, huh?? Just gets a little under your skin, right
> > little dicky??
>
> This too funny. This is RIV in high gear. Just who do you think
> people would believe is an abuser? A cyberbully like you or a
> logical, fact bearer like myself? ROTFLMAO.

"Fact bearer"?!!! HHHHAAAAAA ahhaaa ah ahah hahaha!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe
if you didn't LIE so much little dicky, you might get your two fans
to support you some more!!

The facts nail Roibbe again. Robbie, the master liar, who believes
1+1=3. Need I say more.

> > > > > No, everyone skims over your babbling so easily. All

those

> > words just go down the tube without having there intended

effect.

> > > >
> > > > Here's a flash, little dicky....they're all for only YOU!!

I

> > > already see your pain here and you never were any good at
hiding
> > it. So why not let's SHARE it!!
> > >
> > > Yawn. Robbie pretty much just admitted to being a complete
moron.
> > > Everyone else can see your words never effect me.
> >
> > Taken from the sticks & stones mentality from growing up! Tey I
saw
> > you geeks a bit differently. You were stomped on, called names,
> > knocked down, you got up, we knocked you fools down again, and
> > eventually you started crying out "MOMMY, MOMMY...the cool guys
are
> > hurting me!!" You're really doing the same thing here. If

nothing

> > affected you you'd simply walk away and not have any need to

say

a
> > thing. But you're hurtin little dicky, and the pain is REAL!
>
> RIV. Robbie was never a cool guy. His continual mention of his
> childhood days makes that abundantly clear. I guess he thinks

that

by asserting he was someone, it will change history ... is this guy
ever going to grow up?

Prove that 'assertion' that i was 'never a cool guy'!! Load up that
geek-gun and fire away!!!

You just proved it yourself. The real "cool guys" moved on with their
lives. Made something of themselves. They don't bring up their high
school days over and over again because they continued to enjoy new
and exciting events in their lives. Just the opposite of little
Robbie.

> > > It's your middle name, Rob Adlads Singer. And, just another
> reason
> > > for your jealousy.
> >
> > Now who in the name of Pete is that!? I swear, you are sooo

corny

> and
> > such a nerd that if I could take a dump on you as you squaeled,

I

> > would!
>
> Once again everyone else got it. You know, in the lines you just
> deleted. LMAO.

??? I guess you got tired here.

Nope. Just another demonstration of you stupidity.

> --------------------------------
> Re: Dancer-haters
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > YOU are your
> > > > own worst enemy, and YOU are the reference you're looking
for.
> > Live with it....but please don't die over it! I need a whipping
> post!!
> >
> > > The old babbler is still stuck. Maybe a little grease between
the
> > > fingers will help.
> >
> > Now wait a minute. My wife isn't all hagged out by casino trips
and
> > as such, I certainly have no reason to grease my fingers. I see
why
> > you do. The romance disappeared long ago, and now you stay
together
> > through intimidation and a mutual addiction to casinos and
> gambling.
> > A legacy to be proud of if there ever was one.
>
> Let's see, which one of us visited a casino in the last two

weeks?

> Uh, that would be Rob. Once again, need I say more ...

May I point out that I didn't drag my wife along with, and neither
was she wanting to go to a casino?? Or how about I might have

played

45 minutes and left?? Now let's compare that to 3 hours a day all
while blaming an addict wife for making you go!! NEXT!!!

More denial. Did we expect anything less? We already know your wife
has to work to support your losses. Someone has to support you.

> ----------------------------
> Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More Cold
> Cycles

> > The more you post the more I come
> > alive! It's not often that geek-haters get to romp & stomp on
them after high school days are done. Again, thank you God!

> Back into his high school fantasy. You must have been abused

quite

a bit. However, it was 40 years ago, get over it.

Back in my day it was a good piece of ass that brought tears to our
eyes. For you, it was guys like me that made you whimper and cry.

and

don'tcha know it....I'm STILL doing it TODAY!!

Even more evidence. It's been shown over and over again that when
someone keeps repeating some old story, it's highly likely the story
is a lie.

> > > > > And all you've 'proved' is you're a dork. And stupid. and
> > blind. and one who works in a closed room of math models and

geek-

> > expressions. And you're alone. Why, we all should only listen

to

> you
> > and not anyone else who says you're wrong, RIGHT?!! Now maybe

you

> > know what a true vp-blind clown is, RIGHT? RIGHT!
> >
> > > Didn't you mention "wordy" a bit ago? ... It's pretty obvious
> who's
> > rattled here. Rob obviously choose not to respond to my points
> > below because he knows he can't refute the facts. How sweet
> itis ...
> >
> > > one problem with your obvious nervous reply....My words hit
> > > home and cause you trouble every time--
>
> >
> > > which is the prime objective of my existence here. The more I
> > write, as a true writer and not a wannabee trying to 'belong'
like
> > you, the better!
> >
> > > > > Then why didn't Rob write something in response to my
facts?
> > Why did he choose to just babble away instead? You be the the
judge.
> >
> > > > I AM the judge....and jury. And to you, I'm your

executioner

> too!
> > > > Feel that knife called 'the truth'? Feel it going right

thru

> your
> > > > make believe heart? (I say make believe because no human
heart
> > > could EVER treat a wife as disrespectful as you've done)!
> > >
> > > The wife babble again? You're not listening, son. You're

making

a
> > > complete fool out of yourself.
> >
> > I don't THINK so little dicky, and from the sound of your deny
> reply
> > you might just be holding together by a thread!
>
> LMAO. You are getting totally thrashed and you have nowhere to

go.

> You've tried these hollow monkey boy responses before and it

didn't

> work any better then. Remember, you ended up running away and
> sulking. It's going to happen again, because you have no weapons.
All you have is easily refuted lies and false claims.

I've got the BIG advantage here....YOU have to look that poor woman
in the eyes every day and think of what a messed-up retirement

you've

made for her because of problem gambling. Then you've got to face
yourself, if you can ever do it again.

LMAO. Once again Robbie tries the same old hollow words. Come on, no
new lies? You must be a big disappointment to opt-shill.

> > > > i've asked for you to show at least SOME dignity. I mean, I
> > really don't like stomping on a dead man (just a hurtin' one!).
> >
> > > LMAO. Your words are dust. They've dried out and everyone can
now see what's behind them. A frustated bully who has met his match.
> >
> > Now it's 'dust'! The words that 'don't affect him' are
now 'dust'!! Well, it's good to know he can't be 'affected' by
them!!! HAHAHA!!!!
>
> You already knew that ... but you have nothing else to offer. You
> have no weapons, you have no facts, you have no logic. All you

have

> is your childhood fantasies of days long gone. Have I mentioned
that you need help?

(and needless to say little Robbie was in a hurry here too)

> Re: I'm Starting To Worry About The Denyer's Health

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> >
> > With the administered beating this nerd is absorbing, one might
be wondering just how much loss he can endure. Well, from my
> experience these jerks can absorb a HUGE amount of punishment,

but

this might be getting to be too much. I've noticed it takes the
dicker twice as long to respond to my messages than it takes me to
reply to his. One can only imagine the misery he goes through in
doing so. Sounds like fun!

> It is fun. I enjoy making you look foolish. There's no way you

can

> perpetrate your con with your impotence exposed for everyone to

see.

It certainly is as I've said, and it'll just keep getting better as
long as you don't pop thru your roof with the high blood pressure.

115/70

The truth always finds it's mark, and it found you long ago here.

My

job is to keep wailing away at you until you admit your a fool
gambler wqho's cursed his former loving wife with the same disease.

Same old hollow words yet again. Hey, opt-shill, you better have a
talk with the monkey boy, he's lost it entirely.

> > One thing I don't want to see is the dicker getting sick - or
worse.That would be awful. There'd be nothing to look forward to on
here anymore. I enjoy verbally abusing the geek, making him feel
smaller thanhe degenerated into when he allowed pathological

gambling

to take overhis (and unfortunately, her) lives, and it's just sooo
preciouswatching him come unraveled over not understanding modern
technologyassociated within his own geek-field when he was

employed.

And justwhere else can you find someone so willing to deny and lie
abouteverything he makes himself look foolish about? I need him for
laughs.(insert thankful prayer).

> It was nice of RIV to give us some more insight into what is

going

on in Robbie's life. RIV, keep up the good work.

What else could you say?

Nothing else, just the facts, as usual.

> ---------------------
> Re: Now Isn't This Special.....
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > From a post tonight on vpFREE-----------
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Overall for the trip we didn't hit any royals and finished down
> > about $2800. However, the $165 cashback from the Venetian and

$150

> > sweepstakes win did bring this down to under $2500 in absolute
cash.Just about where I would expect to be with 100K coin-in and no
> royal.
> > rhizome"
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > I guess the math came through for these people, yesiree! Just
where they 'expected to be' after $100k of "playing like the

addicts

do"! And no doubt they bought every book by Jean Scott, Dan Paymar,
and all of Bob Dancer's strategy cards just so it wouldn't be a
surprise when it happened the way the math predicted it would! But
gee, they got their cash back and hit the sweepstakes BIG time,
didn't they...... And you know what? If they get a chance to chat
with any of the gurus or Mr. Wizards....even our own little
dicky....there really will be no problem after all. If they can
somehow manufacture that they played in 'positive EV' situations,
then they've lost absolutely nothing. What they did, by golly, is

WIN

because they 'played with an edge'! Now all they gotta do is figure
out how to deposit all those phantom bucks. At 1.5%, that's 1500 of
them! But you know what? Little dicky can help them there too. He
makes deposits 'all the time'!!

> I think Rob's jealousy here is very telling. An individual posts

an

> honest account of his trip which resulted in a loss. Everyone has
had losses and this is nothing special. However, Rob, who has

claimed

> that APers never admit losing, now comes unglued when a loss is
> reported.

AHAHAH HA HA HA!! I knew you couldn't let that one die little

dicky!

You skipped the point and are now caught again--

You had a point? All you did was go on and on about someone losing
which you admit doing yourself. If that's suppose to be a point then
I think your logic is leaking bigtime.

gee, that's starting
to sound like a broken record about you. This fool poster has been

so

overwhelmingly misled by the gurus and math idiots, that he now
thinks it's allright to lose because "that's what the math

predicted

would happen with no royals"!! If I though he could be saved I'd
write him a personal message. But he obviously clings to the

Queen's

baloney and Dancer's and yours and Paymars etc. etc., and he'll be

a

loser all his life like the rest of his mentors are.

So, I guess Rob really is claiming he NEVER loses. ROTFLMAO. You
should have stuck to your high school fantasies.

> Come on Rob, admit it. You are so jealous of APers that you will
say anything ... even if it contradicts what you've previously said
over and over again.

I wonder if any of that'll ever happen.....

It just did ... again.

OK, let's tally up Rob's facts ... 0+0+...+0 = 0.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that he
mentions
> my name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine all of

these

> threads together to limit the number of items posted. They're all
> pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself so often.
>
> But little dicky, I thought you KNEW this was all about

humiliating

> such a farce as you! And admit it, the only reason you pasted all
the
> posts is so you could delete as much ridicule and truths about

you

as
> possible. C'mon....play fair............

If that was the reason then why didn't I delete it all or even 10%?
Sorry, little man, but your lies are easily refuted.

All part of your what you think is the 'mystery' about you as you
play out a fantasy you weren't even allowed to chase as a nerdy youth.

>
> > I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies in

Rob's

> > posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his lastest

trip

> to Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime he
> gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this,
if
> you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the
goal?
> > If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.
>
> Probably a vaild question----if you were talking to a fellow
addict!
> People who raise goals for no reason have little discipline and
fall
> more into you and your wife's sad category than anywhere else. I
play
> only for goals and these days only when there's something my
children
> may want.

Sorry, Rob but you've claimed many times that discipline is a big
reason for your success. Now, you change tactics in mid-stream.
Discipline?

Obviously, einstein. Discipline.

You've got to be kidding. Not to mention, you drove all

the way over to Laughlin. If winning was such a sure thing, why not
stay an extra hour and get the whole $2500? Do you actually think
anyone will believe your excuse. ROTFLMAO.

I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from less than an
hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your inferiority
complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +. Seems your
facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.

>
> > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never responded to
> this question so let me ask him again. How can you have only 8
losses
> at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session losses
overall?
> Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just didn't think through
> this lie. Of course, this calls into question EVERYTHING that Rob
has
> ever claimed. If he will lie about his gambling record here, how
can
> anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the truth.
>
> Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-up me you
> just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already
completely
> covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment before, but

you're

> asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or close to
that)
> at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read Rule #6 again from

my

> strategy page. It'll clearly tell you why your 'impossible dream'
is
> now just another nightmare for you to wallow thru all night long.

Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up with a
new lie.

That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the rule--as I'm
sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a geek must
feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure to review
the facts! Oh what joy!!

Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As everyone
else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a

progression

is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So,

let's

take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at $25

and

7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to have
had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now a

259

total tries.

With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a myriad of
facts on my site that even the geek of the year has trouble following
them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times. Sorry (not really!)
you feel so bad again!

a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about 10% of
the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up another
lie.

Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25? I know at
the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of course--where
you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in denomination)
these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm surprised.

b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly impossible. A
positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of

winning

any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
hilarious.

'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you either
are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25,
and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.

c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of 31

losses

out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80% win rate
equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-40%. Not

to

mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to cover the
losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more hilarious.

I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-information
about how I play and what I've accomplished, you might be able to do
a worthwhile analysis.

d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his current

win

level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25 level if needed.

Now,

I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In fact, out of 1000

sims

I didn't get a single win total equal to Rob's claims.

Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last one.

And what of these sims anyway, when you are totally clueless of the
strategy. You';ve shown remarkable inability to comprehend what you
read. Either that, or you know what you read and deliberately mess it
up here so you can ramble on about how it 'doesn't' work as i say it
has. But that's hardly the geek way. If you don't correct yourself in
public here then it's for sure you'll be doing it thru the night
instead of the usual tossing & turning over my success.

>
> > Re: Little dicky's Shattered Life....
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > I've figured out why my pal is so misled and
> > unknowledgeable in the world of the modern programmer, and why

he

> can't listen to or even hear logic. He's still embedded into the
days
> where he used punch-out cards to program the computers!
> > >
> > > > > > Sorry to blow your bubble again moron, but punch cards
went
> > out
> > > > in the 60s. Sure, a few technically backwards organization
> still
> > > used them (probably where Rob came up with this).
> > >
> > > > > HAHAHA!! A RATTLED LITTLE DICKY isn't the WORD for what

he

> must
> > > be going through with this shot! Goddam---right to the

HEART!!

> > > Imagine what would happen if I opened my eyes and fired away!!
> > > (Now onto the neurotic try at 'setting the record straight'

so

in
> > > > his mind, he won't be able to believe anyone's laughing at
him.)
> > >
> > > > Are you through babbling yet? I guess Rob must have thought
> punch
> > > > cards were used into the 90s. Is he lost or what?
> > >
> > > Doesn't much matter what I think, little dicky.
> >
> > I agree with that statement completely.
> >
> > > What I KNOW is what's
> > > important here, and I know you are RATTLED beyond your normal
> > limit.
> > > Why else would you be so persistent on telling us meaningless
> > > nonsense about the punch cards you're so infatuated with??
> >
> > Nice try dipstick. I made you look like a fool for bringing up
> punch cards. It's been obvious for a long time that you are
complete
> techno-weenie. This just adds more evidence.
>
> When "back in the day" means punchcards for you and that's what

you

> base all your illogic and denial on here, then your meals will
> forever consist of crow.

You can't get out of your situation. You've shown just how out-of-
date with reality you are. How are all those corded phones in your
house doing?

Out-of-date = YOU!

>
> > > > > >>However, I started using
> > > > > > dependent computer terminals in the early 70s and was
using
> > > both networked PCs and UNIX workstations at the time I

retired.

I
> > > know you won't understand any of this, but others will.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know about laughing any more here, because I've
> laughed so much I now have to THROW UP!!
> > > >
> > > > Nice try,
>
> I know, but aren't they all.....

No, some of them are very poor tries. In everycase all they amount

to

is a "try".

>
> but you've once again shown you have no comprehension
> > of the real world. Of course, RIV has been telling us that all
> > along. Now we get to see it from Robbie himself.

I suppose Robbie still plays pong too ... on his B&W TV.

> > >
> > > You have no mercy. You want me to DIE LAUGHING at your damage
> > > control!?
>
> > Hollow words. Do you still believe that no one can read? You
> brought up punch cards, you look foolish. How's that rotary phone
of
> yours?
>
> You know, I actually stopped laughing while you went on another
> gambling binge, but now my side has to be stitched up AGAIN!!!
> HHHAAA HA HA HA!!!!!

A very poor try. Just as hollow as before. PS. I still haven't
gambled since 4/4.

From the words of the most prolific denyer in all of video poker!

>
> > > > > > One dimensional....B&W.....and too simple for words.

And

> why doesn't he want to realize the technological advances
> > > > > that have been made? Obviously, the girls in the short
skirts
> > who sat nearby and punched the cards all day long! I really
should
> > > start charging for this stuff!
>
> > > > > > You already got paid more than this drivel is worth.
ZERO.
> > > > > > PS. I'll correct your spelling for you in the subject
line.
> > > > I can only imagine the embarrassment that would cause Rob

to

> > babble on like this. We've already seen many times that his
> frustration is directly correlated to his babbling. Of course,
> everyone can see why Rob is resorting to trash talking. I've

proved

> him to be a LAF and a con man. His back is against the wall.
>
> > > Yes, that's some wall behind me there, yesiree!

Babbling/trash-

> > > talking....oh my, these are the main issues here now that
little
> > > dicky can't find his way home to comfy land. Yikes!
> >
> > RIV. Still works for me. By the way, Are your rabbit ears still
> > bringing in good TV reception?
>
> What? Now you're saying I have "rabbit ears" on Easter sunday??

Every morning.

>
> > -------
>
> > Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More

Cold

> > Cycles
>
> But isn't it good to see those truthful but to some, hurtful,

words

> once again.....

Yes, I don't mind you being associated with a mathematical
impossibility.

>
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Give it up, little dicky. Over and over again you're out-
> > classed and made the fool of your own field. Trying to make
> yourself feel better about all the sense here is superficial and
will
> be rendered useless just as soon as you read my reply. I sense
you're
> geek-armor weakening as we speak. Oh, can it EVER get any better
> than this?!! When will we have the chance again to watch as

little

> dicky wallows away in self-sympathy?? And I though pulling the
nerds'
> pants down in the girl's high school gym was the epic moment in

my

> life!
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see that Rob's "wordiness" continues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup--by a professional writer to boot! The more I can lay
on
> > you the better the day....and night!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, haven't you been sleeping well? That's too bad, I

suppose

> > > having your con exposed will do that. All you need to do is

go

> get some help and you'll feel much better.
> > >
> > > I don't need sleep when I'm having THIS much fun! I could

stay

> > awake forever if I was able to write you into the ground as

often

> as I'm doing tonight!!
> >
> > I think it's pretty clear that all these words ... babbled in
every
> > post ... claiming to have so much fun ... is a little too

forced.

> > Could it be that this is just another attempt to try and look
good
> in the face of overwhelming defeat? Rob's Little Bighorn.
>
> HAHA! Watching your armor deteriorate is only the BEGINNING of

the

> fun!

Let's keep track of how many facts Rob posts here. So far ... ZERO.
Of course, the rest is his normal babbling.

....babbling that HURTS! and THAT's what's important here....

>
> > > > > >Did I mention that is a sure sign he has been rattled?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind of a wee bit too late to wear that comfy blankey to
bed,
> > > > little dicky. You've been spanked so hard MY HAND is red!
>
> > > > It's never too late for the truth. You should know that by
now.
> > >
> > > Now you're speaking my language. Too late though. Both my

hand

> and your butt are RED!
> >
> > So, Rob wants to touch my butt. I knew he was jealous, but this
is
> a little extreme.
>
> A spanking's a spanking!

A pervert is a pervert.

>
> > > > > >Yup, poor Robbie, repeating the same insults over and

over

> > > again. Is he this repetitive in real life?
> > >
> > > >And loving every repeat, because just as we used to kick the
> nerds down when they tried so hard to get up, it's just as
satisfying
> now....even more so, as I get to watch a live nerd suffer over

and

> over again before my very eyes. Thank you God!
>
> > > > Notice the dramatic increase in words. A sure sign I called
> this one correctly. Not only that, but he just repeated his
standard
> BS again. How sweet it is ...
> > >
> > > You're right--I'm really on a roll tonight and lovin every
minute
> > of it! What a way to end a great day! Nerd-whacking!!
> >
> > The repetitive, hollow words continue. Each time he

demonstrates

> his obvious frustration. How sweet it is ...
>
> Yes, it is VERY sweet getting in this many shots. and i thought

the

> fun of the holiday was over!!

Over and over again. All part of Robbie's Rule #6.

>
> > > > > > I bet Rob really like the one about buying property in
> > > Louisiana.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll wait and see if optdouble can respond, but don't
count
> on it. He claims to be a software engineer, yet, he doesn't
> understand that "secondary programming" and a "second program"

are

> two entirely different things. Secondary programming is ANY code
> inserted to modify the behavior of the RNG.
>
> > > > > Isn't that just like a nervous ranting geek to make

believe

> he knows things someone else doesn't--
> > > >
> > > > I think your shill has been uncovered, little man. Opt-

shill

> goes
> > > on about ALL sorts of special programming that would take

lots

of
> > > extra memory. I guess he thinks IGT is in the business to

lose

> > money
> > > just to provide special help to the casinos. He also failed

to

> > > explain why the NGC, which reviews every line of code, would
> > somehow
> > > miss all of this special programming.
> > >
> > > Yada yada yada on and on and on about his saving face. He

just

> HAD
> > to
> > > get these words of geek-wisdom in or else he would toss and
turn
> > all
> > > night long!
> >
> > It appears Robbie faces another sleepless night. Did you see

him

> > refute anything I stated? Nope. Once again the facts are little
> > Robbie's downfall. How sweet it is ...
>
> You mean refute what you refute? You have no facts, so why waste
> time? Optdouble's obviously bothered you with his logic and you

sit

> there stymied and irritated. All that does is give me a warm and
> fuzzy that you are left speechless again. Yummy!

LMAO. You mean his claims of a backroom switch? I can just imagine
that gives you a "warm and fuzzy" one. Hollow doesn't even begin

to

describe this statement ... All you have to do is read reg 5 and 14
to know that this is illegal.

http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm#regs

What a geek! Reacts to my every command just like an obedient slave!!
And the best part--he's WRONG!!! HAHAHA!!!!! AGAIN!!

>
> > > > > and/or tries to correct someone with BS!
> > > > > Where would this nerd be without his ability to 'set his
> record
> > > > > straight' which he so neurotically needs to do every time
> > someone
> > > > > comes on and shows a tad bit of intelligence that goes
beyond
> > his
> > > > > archaic knowledge base? How he must HURT inside.....
> > >
> > > > Yup, your shill sure is "intelligent", I'd think even you
would
> > > have been embarrassed by his ridiculous statements.
> > >
> > > I don't really know what a 'shill' is, but I'm betting it's
some
> > sort
> > > of imaginary thing having to do with gambling, since gambling
> > > controls every aspect of your life.
>
> (and needless to say little dicky was in a hurry here too)
> > --------------------

I didn't care if you understood or not. Everyone else knows, which
puts you right where I want you.

>
> > Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More

Cold

> > Cycles
>
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks, Rob. Finally a clear explanation that we

can

> all understand. Although we will be probably see a bunch of
> replies talking about how this is "illegal" and "wouldn't be
> allowed".
>
> > > > > > That's because it IS illegal ... not to mention,

casinos

> have nothing to gain. They already have the edge in almost all
> > games. Why would they risk losing their lucrative gambling
business?
> > >
> > > > > Blah blah blah---same old rant with the same old tune of
geek-
> > > > denial attached.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like the facts did it again. Stopped Robbie cold.
> > >
> > > Brrrrr....yup it's really cold here in Phoenix tonight! If
little
> > > dicky had any facts for a change I'd dance the jig. All I see
is
> > > whining like "gee, it's illegal because I don't do it"
> and "casinos have nothing to gain because I don't get that part

of

> it". Truly, a weeny whiner!
>
> > Still out in the cold, little man? How does it feel to have

your

> > idiotic claims shown impotent time and again?
>
> It might be a tad more meaningful if you supplied some reason and

a

> little less whining. You've got nowhere to go but up here anyway.

I guess Robbie must be fully in agreement with opt-shill that the
casinos violate reg 5. ROTFLMAO.

Your whole existence is a 'guess'. Nothing is real, and the state
Contract isn't even there because the regs fall outside of its scope.
Truly amazing.

>
> > Do you really trust the casinos that much??? After
> > minimally complying with the regulations, you should expect

them

to
> > try and take every dollar that they can in any way humanly
possible.
>
> >Well, first off, this would NOT be "minimally complying with
> > > the regulations", it would be breaking the law.
>
> >Which law---geek law?
>
> > NV law that doesn't allow machines to be modifed.

(and needless to say little Robbie was in a hurry here too)

>
> > > That's exactly why they arrive in true form just as I've
> explained with the facts a thousand times. What? Doesn't fit into
> little dicky's pipeline mind? Must be wrong!! Geek-law is right

and

> > everyone else is wrong!!
>
> > Everyone else (except you and opt-shill) can read the law and
> accept it. If they've been in casinos very often they've probably
> even seen techs changing paytables/games/etc. The machine is shut
> down and the process takes quite a bit of time. Next, I suppose,
> you'll claim they do this all for show. LMAO.
>
> I know you're digging for more info here because this knowledge
> interests you. You might even pick up some of that longed for

info

if
> you'd let me explain the Nv. contract to you. You only have two
> shades--Black & White. The contract is multi-colored for several
> purposes that you'll never get with the blinders planted firmly
onto
> your face. And what does the tekkies working on machines have to

do

> with the way they are programmed in cycles at the factory?

What is "multi-colored" about the word NO? It is so ammusing to see
Robbie scramble here. So, let's see him do it again ... Robbie
explain the "contract" that NV has with the casinos. ROTFLMAO.

Making up wirds has zero credibility. Face the fact that you're life
didn't prepare you to read Gov't. contracts, just as it didn't
prepare you to debate people like me. You've been contunuously out-
classed at every trun and just like a good geek--you seem to enjoy
the beating. And I'm just the guy to keep administering the painful
punishment!!

>
> > > > > you've already been instructed on how the
> > > > > contracts are written, you don't want a personal

education

> > class on contract law, and you clearly couldn't live with
yourself
> if you ever came to the understanding that what you believe in is
not
> the way it is. Does the words 'little dicky's foolish' make any
sense
> to you??
> > > >
> > > > Still no contracts involved, LAFman. Just NGC regs.

However,

> this is an entirely different regulation (reg 5). The one that
> doesn't allow casinos to change any programming in the machines
> without NGC approval. Let's hear you lie your way of of this one.
> > >
> > > Right on cue! I've directed little dicky to look up more of

the

> > state CONTRACT and he does EXACTLY as I tricked him into doing--
> flops out another regulation from the CONTRACT. And this gets
> funnier. Then he proceeds to step into it BIG TIME! He makes
believe
> everyone against his geek-logic is sayiung that the machines are
> changed after they arrive at the casinos!! Can anyone possibly be
> more thick??
>
> > ROTFLMAO. Did Rob actually think anyone would read his mighty
> babble and believe it? All he did was deny what is clearly

written

in
> black and white. Rob, you're not doing too well here. Maybe you
> should rethink your entire approach. Just tell everyone the dog

ate

> all the NGC regs and made them invalid.
>
> Remember those blinders and remember the colors. And just now

dense

> can you be not to understand that the regs are included in a
> CONTRACT??

Still waiting for you explain a "contract" where neither party

signs

off on it. This is too funny.

Oh, something like that would be instantly disallowed by both
parties. Is that what you're basing your dellusion on?

> How can you possibly expect even your 2 fans here to
> continue believing anything you spew??? I try to play fair, but

gee

> whiz--you give me soooo much of an advantage!

Chucle, chuckle. I'm still waiting for you to explain a "contract"
between a state and a bunch of casinos where the casinos have no

say

in the matter. Did I mention your scrambling ...

Hmmm.... Let me see if this new entry merits my trashing of little
dicky. OK. Little dicky (the fool one more time for those who are
losing track) believes because he reads the gaming commission
regulations governing casinos in Nevada (and probably elsewhere) that
neither side is required--or has ever--signed up to an agreement of
the pact's terms. Instead, it's all perpetuated on some sort of
(snicker snicker, LAUGH!) GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT or handshake!! What a
DUFUS!

>
> > > > > I mean, who do you think is contributing the money to

build

> all of those huge casino hotels anyways....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The players playing without an edge. Yup, the players

who

> > play
> > > > > > roulette, craps, BJ, stud, etc.; the players crowding
into
> > the
> > > > > poker rooms where the casinos takes a % of every pot; the
> > players
> > > > > hitting the slots; the clueless VP players. I think we're
up
> to
> > > > about 99% of casino customers. Was this really supposed to

be

> an
> > > > > intelligent statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > There it is again....it's "the other guys" who lose and

not

> > > little dicky or any of the 'gurus'. Ho-Hum.... So wordy, yet

so

> > > nerdy....
> > >
> > > > So, you think these players all win? How do the casinos

stay

in
> > > > business?
> > >
> > > Only a few intelligent players win, bozo. Like myself, Bob,

and

a
> > > handful of people who write to me that all use some variation
of
> my play strategies.
> >
> > Save your watch ...
>
> ???

Is that your definition of a contract? Not surprising ...

>
> > > Fools like you & the gurus have no chance without
> > > continuous extreme luck and you know it. The real money never
> > leaves with you. You make a bundle in 'phantom bucks' because

you

> play like frenzied addicts, but how many times are you laughed at
> when you walk in the bank with a theoretical deposit??!!
>
> > Another scramble, Robbie? This is getting beyond OBVIOUS. I

have

> you
> > so nailed at every turn that all you can do is babble. By the
way,
> > did you get your babbler tuned up? While you're at it, I would
also
> > suggest a brain overhaul. Your current one is leaking logic all
> over the place.
>
> Silly, maybe self-entertaining....but as usual, a simple cover to
> that which you are in extreme denial about.

Still leaking. But I'm glad you admitted I was entertaining.

>
> > > > > > > So, basically a bunch of "advantage players" playing
the
> > same
> > > > > > machine more or less ensures that the number of Royal
> Flushes
> > > will be LESS than expected almost all of the time since the
> machine
> > > will not be making enough money to get into a mode where "hot
> cycle
> > > corrections" are needed.
> > >
> > > > > > Did I mention clueless?
> > >
> > > > > I certainly have, many times, and you fit that bill like

a

> tee.
> > >
> > > > Poor try Robbie. This guy's just another yahoo who believes
the
> > > > machines are controlled externally. Even you know better

than

> > that.
> > >
> > > Externally? Now you making THAT up too?? Are you THAT sore
about
> > > losing here??
> >
> > Sorry, to hit you with the facts again, but your shill claimed
that
> > the machines would be set to pay back less during promotions.
That
> is called an "external switch". So, are you supporting this
position?
> > Are you claiming to be just as idiotic?
>
> I don't have info on this new point other than to NOT believe

you,

> because that's always the safe bet. One thing i do know. I

watched

a
> vp tournament in Laughlin 2 years ago, and the Royals were coming
out
> as fast as R,W, & B 7's in slot machine tournaments. How'd they

do

> that?

So, you are claiming to believe there's an illegal external switch.
LMAO. By the way, if they put a tournament board into the machines
they can pay back whatever they want. These special boards also
usually have timers or countdown credits. Are you really this
clueless?

Oh, so they can make changes, yet they can't! You fell into that trap
head first, and by the time you try to talk your way out you'll be so
dizzy you'll puke!

>
> > > > > > > In other words, enough idiot players would be needed
to
> > > > > > > make the required profit on the machine to ensure

that

> > enough Royal Flushes could be "allowed".
> > >
> > > > > > I wonder if this guy even understands that this is

beyond

> > > > secondary programming. This would require throwing out the
RNG
> > > altogether.
> > >
> > More evidence that you've never kept up with modern technology

in

> your own sorry field. Do you have to keep embarrassing me, as

your

> sponsor here??

LMAO. You just supported a claim that hands were given out based on
some other criteria besides random. This is "throwing out the RNG".

I

think embarrassing is too easy a word to describe your situation.

> > > >
> > > > Your repetitive words are getting more hollow all the time.
> > Please explain how the NGC code reviewers would miss all this
extra
> code.
>
> And who says it's "missed"? You're even misleading yourself
> now....incredible!

I see. The NGC makes regs that the employees purposedly ignore or

are

instructed to ignore. And, no employee EVER admits this. LMAO. Did
the Easter bunny bring you this tale?

As advertised, you are truly your own worst enemy.

>
> > > Please...PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself! It embarrasses me
too
> > you know, as your sponsor here!
> >
> > LMAO. Put a direct question to Robbie and watch him scramble.
> Whatsa matter, little man. The truth hitting you where it hurts?
>
> As your sponsor here, you should care just a little more than

that.

Hmmmm. You sponsor someone proving you are a LAF ... You're not too
bright are you? But then, we already knew that.

>
> > > > This would also suggest that somebody would be a COMPLETE
IDIOT
> > to
> > > keep playing a machine after it just hit a Royal Flush,
> > > > correct? Because the machine would surely be

overcorrected

> > after
> > > that point, and would probably be starting a bunch of new

cold

> > cycles.
> > >
> > > > > > So, I guess the two times I hit RFs within 15 minutes

of

> each
> > > > other on the same machine is impossible. I'd better go back
and
> > > check those W2Gs and see if they are real.
> > >
> > > > > You just proved another point. That machine was in a hot
> cycle that was required to correct it's hold percentage upwards.
> Thank you.
> > >
> > > > After giving me a double RF? Yup. That's right. This

machine

> pays double on RFs. 4.4% of the total payout. You better head

back

to
> > > the drawing board, your lies are easily dismissed.
> > >
> > > Oh, so now you add THAT in only after you struggled? And

leave

it
> > to you to make up that 4.4% number. It paid you what it paid

you

> that night and it had nothing to do with theory. You can't even
enjoy
> > the times you win because you're so intertwined with analyzing
> every aspect of the math models. No wonder you lead such a sour
life!
> >
> > Boy is Rob ever scrambling bigtime. Once again he can't respond
to
> a factual statement.
>
> If ever you provided a fact to some off-the-wall assertion you've
> made, I'll eat my hat on top of the Stratosphere.

So, you don't believe it's a double payabck RF? 8000 credits? Would

a

picture suffice or do you need to see it yourself?

You're a confirmed, proven liar who lies to both make himself appear
bar better a person than he actually is, and to cover fateful tracks--
which is prevalent here.

>
> > This is getting hilarious. Rob must not know that everytime a

big

> > storm passes near Louisiana a part of the coast is reclaimed by
the
> > gulf. I thought this story was shown so many times last summer
that
> > EVERYONE would know it by now. I guess Robbie missed it ...

like

so
> > many other things that pass him by.
>
> Only gambling addicts paid attention to all that nonsense last
> summer, for fear that their favorite machines might not be
available
> on their next pass thru while on a phoney vacation. The rest of

us

> had our own lives to attend to.

So, according to Rob, only gambling addicts watch the news. I

suspect

a few folks out there might disagree with this idiotic assertion.
LMAO.

There's that thinking again! The curse of nerds.

>
> > > > > > > Also, it would stand to reason that correct "casino
> > strategy"
> > > > for
> > > > > > VP machines would be to take over a machine which has
just
> > > busted
> > > > > out somebody after they placed a decent amount of credits
on
> > it,
> > > in
> > > > > the theory that they have used up a lot of the cold

cycles,

> and
> > > the
> > > > > machine is then theoretically nearer to a corrective hot
> cycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I doubt that this is Robbie. Even he can see how

idiotic

> this
> > > > > sounds. Did I mention clueless?
> > >
> > > > > Is that supposed to be a reply--or are you at a loss for
> words
> > > > > again?? At least you didn't make me laugh here too!
> > > >
> > > > 18 words this time ... A new record for you. I made my

points

> and
> > > you looked foolish trying to refute the facts with nothing

but

> > > idiotic babbling. How sweet it is ...
> > >
> > > HAHAHA! I've even got you analyzing posts now! You are sooooo
my
> > > puppet. and being your own worst enemy is an added bonus that

I

> > thank
> > > the Lord for every moment I'm on here!
> >
> > Yup. You've got me right where I want you. Good job. I still

love

> the
> > one about multiple cold cycles. A mathematical impossibility

and

> > Robbie keeps uttering it over and over again.
>
> Impossible to you but true to the rest of the world.

"Impossible ... but true" ... Only Rob could utter such an idiotic
line. This is getting good. I can't remember when little Robbie
uttered so MANY foolish comments one right after another.

> Did you ever
> think that might be the reason you're wearing that Dunce Cap

every

> waking hour?

ROTFLMAO. I wonder if Robbie even realizes he said the equivalent

of

1+1=3, and then states I'm wearing a "Dunce Cap" by believing that
1+1=2. He really keeps 'em coming.

> > --------------------------
>
> > Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I know I know, you depend on these long, messy
> threads
> > to
> > > > try and confuse anyone who reads them....which is not the
norm
> > for
> > > a geek--we all see how nervous you are in your quest to make
> > yourself
> > > feel at least half-confident after you've been flogged in
public
> > yet
> > > again. I suggest for that good feeling of being superior, bo

on

> > back
> > > in and boss your wife around again. That'll get your
confidence
> > back
> > > up there, for sure! Make believe she's me and it'll climb

that

> much
> > > faster. Go ahead---give it your best shot like you do all the
> time!
> > > Never mind you've never had the upper hand with me.

Just "make

> > > believe" (now that's not hard for a pathological addict todo,
is
> > > it???) you're pushing a REAL MAN around and you'll be set

free!!

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, who is the wordy one? It looks like I hit a
nerve
> > > again.
> > > > > Rob obviously thought that posting a response, with the
proof
> > of
> > > > his
> > > > > > > lies deleted, that he could make it go away. LMAO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That hurt, didn't it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, not in the least. I got a good laugh at all of your
> > > babbling.
> > > > >
> > > > > That REALLY hurt, didn't it!
> > > >
> > > > Is your babbler stuck? Did I mention repetitive?
> > >
> > > the more you read it the more you get an itch you'll never be
> able
> > to
> > > scratch. Am I THE MASTER or what!
> >
> > THE MASTER liar. That is exactly what you are. It's nice to see
we
> > agree on something.
>
> By your irritation, even calomine lotion won't help!

Robbie, the master liar. Kind of has a ring to it. At least Rob

went

back to his normal babbling instead of uttering another ridiculous
claim.

>
> > > > > It's OK, little dicky. I understand your
> > > > > pain here, seeing that you realize other people can see

how

> you
> > > > boss the wife around and all. You can use my nanky. And

good.

> > > that's the sign of a direct hit. Whenever you try to weasel

out

> of
> > a
> > > topic you simply post RIV and hope it all just goes away.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. I really think his babbler IS stuck. Same words over
and
> > over
> > > > again. No facts, no logic, just the same old drivel. Rob, I
> think
> > > you better take that babbler in for some repairs. Maybe a 2
> million
> > > > babble checkup.
> > >
> > > Kinda hard to diffuse the bomb I set about you abusing your
wife
> > day
> > > in and day out, huh?? Just gets a little under your skin,

right

> > > little dicky??
> >
> > This too funny. This is RIV in high gear. Just who do you think
> > people would believe is an abuser? A cyberbully like you or a
> > logical, fact bearer like myself? ROTFLMAO.
>
> "Fact bearer"?!!! HHHHAAAAAA ahhaaa ah ahah hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe

> if you didn't LIE so much little dicky, you might get your two

fans

> to support you some more!!

The facts nail Roibbe again. Robbie, the master liar, who believes
1+1=3. Need I say more.

>
> > > > > > No, everyone skims over your babbling so easily. All
those
> > > words just go down the tube without having there intended
effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a flash, little dicky....they're all for only

YOU!!

I
> > > > already see your pain here and you never were any good at
> hiding
> > > it. So why not let's SHARE it!!
> > > >
> > > > Yawn. Robbie pretty much just admitted to being a complete
> moron.
> > > > Everyone else can see your words never effect me.
> > >
> > > Taken from the sticks & stones mentality from growing up! Tey

I

> saw
> > > you geeks a bit differently. You were stomped on, called

names,

> > > knocked down, you got up, we knocked you fools down again,

and

> > > eventually you started crying out "MOMMY, MOMMY...the cool

guys

> are
> > > hurting me!!" You're really doing the same thing here. If
nothing
> > > affected you you'd simply walk away and not have any need to
say
> a
> > > thing. But you're hurtin little dicky, and the pain is REAL!
> >
> > RIV. Robbie was never a cool guy. His continual mention of his
> > childhood days makes that abundantly clear. I guess he thinks
that
> by asserting he was someone, it will change history ... is this

guy

> ever going to grow up?
>
> Prove that 'assertion' that i was 'never a cool guy'!! Load up

that

> geek-gun and fire away!!!

You just proved it yourself. The real "cool guys" moved on with

their

lives. Made something of themselves. They don't bring up their high
school days over and over again because they continued to enjoy new
and exciting events in their lives. Just the opposite of little
Robbie.

trying to talk your way out of the paper bag you so conveniently
provide for everyone to see what a fool you've been your whole life??
I like it!

>
> > > > It's your middle name, Rob Adlads Singer. And, just another
> > reason
> > > > for your jealousy.
> > >
> > > Now who in the name of Pete is that!? I swear, you are sooo
corny
> > and
> > > such a nerd that if I could take a dump on you as you

squaeled,

I
> > > would!
> >
> > Once again everyone else got it. You know, in the lines you

just

> > deleted. LMAO.
>
> ??? I guess you got tired here.

Nope. Just another demonstration of you stupidity.

> > --------------------------------
> > Re: Dancer-haters
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > YOU are your
> > > > > own worst enemy, and YOU are the reference you're looking
> for.
> > > Live with it....but please don't die over it! I need a

whipping

> > post!!
> > >
> > > > The old babbler is still stuck. Maybe a little grease

between

> the
> > > > fingers will help.
> > >
> > > Now wait a minute. My wife isn't all hagged out by casino

trips

> and
> > > as such, I certainly have no reason to grease my fingers. I

see

> why
> > > you do. The romance disappeared long ago, and now you stay
> together
> > > through intimidation and a mutual addiction to casinos and
> > gambling.
> > > A legacy to be proud of if there ever was one.
> >
> > Let's see, which one of us visited a casino in the last two
weeks?
> > Uh, that would be Rob. Once again, need I say more ...
>
> May I point out that I didn't drag my wife along with, and

neither

> was she wanting to go to a casino?? Or how about I might have
played
> 45 minutes and left?? Now let's compare that to 3 hours a day all
> while blaming an addict wife for making you go!! NEXT!!!

More denial. Did we expect anything less? We already know your wife
has to work to support your losses. Someone has to support you.

Such pain on the face of an addicted gambler who lost respect for his
wife probably when she lost her looks long ago....and became a
certified addict herself. So sad....

> > ----------------------------
> > Re: VP Machines ARE Programmed To Run In Few Hot & Many More

Cold

> > Cycles
>
> > > The more you post the more I come
> > > alive! It's not often that geek-haters get to romp & stomp on
> them after high school days are done. Again, thank you God!
>
> > Back into his high school fantasy. You must have been abused
quite
> a bit. However, it was 40 years ago, get over it.
>
> Back in my day it was a good piece of ass that brought tears to

our

> eyes. For you, it was guys like me that made you whimper and cry.
and
> don'tcha know it....I'm STILL doing it TODAY!!

Even more evidence. It's been shown over and over again that when
someone keeps repeating some old story, it's highly likely the

story

is a lie.

But little dicky, you forget it's all for YOU! Nothing can be said
often enough to get the most satisfaction out of watching a true geek
suffer his due. You had to know this day was coming all your life.
I'm just the lucky guy that got the job!

> > > > > > And all you've 'proved' is you're a dork. And stupid.

and

> > > blind. and one who works in a closed room of math models and
geek-
> > > expressions. And you're alone. Why, we all should only

listen

to
> > you
> > > and not anyone else who says you're wrong, RIGHT?!! Now maybe
you
> > > know what a true vp-blind clown is, RIGHT? RIGHT!
> > >
> > > > Didn't you mention "wordy" a bit ago? ... It's pretty

obvious

> > who's
> > > rattled here. Rob obviously choose not to respond to my

points

> > > below because he knows he can't refute the facts. How sweet
> > itis ...
> > >
> > > > one problem with your obvious nervous reply....My words hit
> > > > home and cause you trouble every time--
> >
> > >
> > > > which is the prime objective of my existence here. The more

I

> > > write, as a true writer and not a wannabee trying to 'belong'
> like
> > > you, the better!
> > >
> > > > > > Then why didn't Rob write something in response to my
> facts?
> > > Why did he choose to just babble away instead? You be the the
> judge.
> > >
> > > > > I AM the judge....and jury. And to you, I'm your
executioner
> > too!
> > > > > Feel that knife called 'the truth'? Feel it going right
thru
> > your
> > > > > make believe heart? (I say make believe because no human
> heart
> > > > could EVER treat a wife as disrespectful as you've done)!
> > > >
> > > > The wife babble again? You're not listening, son. You're
making
> a
> > > > complete fool out of yourself.
> > >
> > > I don't THINK so little dicky, and from the sound of your

deny

> > reply
> > > you might just be holding together by a thread!
> >
> > LMAO. You are getting totally thrashed and you have nowhere to
go.
> > You've tried these hollow monkey boy responses before and it
didn't
> > work any better then.

And here's something everyone should have noticed by now. In nerd
language, something like 'monkey boy' is a dirty, low slung insult.
You weenies only use such weaponry when you are totally conquered and
rattled beyond recognition. I am honored to be your recipient!!

Remember, you ended up running away and

> > sulking. It's going to happen again, because you have no

weapons.

> All you have is easily refuted lies and false claims.
>
> I've got the BIG advantage here....YOU have to look that poor

woman

> in the eyes every day and think of what a messed-up retirement
you've
> made for her because of problem gambling. Then you've got to face
> yourself, if you can ever do it again.

LMAO. Once again Robbie tries the same old hollow words. Come on,

no

new lies? You must be a big disappointment to opt-shill.

Ooohhh....that had to hurt something FIERCE! Reading the truth about
your sick relationship, then having to look her in the eye later on.
Damn I'm the best! Only in the life of a problem gambler...

>
> > > > > i've asked for you to show at least SOME dignity. I mean,

I

> > > really don't like stomping on a dead man (just a hurtin'

one!).

> > >
> > > > LMAO. Your words are dust. They've dried out and everyone

can

> now see what's behind them. A frustated bully who has met his

match.

> > >
> > > Now it's 'dust'! The words that 'don't affect him' are
> now 'dust'!! Well, it's good to know he can't be 'affected' by
> them!!! HAHAHA!!!!
> >
> > You already knew that ... but you have nothing else to offer.

You

> > have no weapons, you have no facts, you have no logic. All you
have
> > is your childhood fantasies of days long gone. Have I mentioned
> that you need help?

(and needless to say little Robbie was in a hurry here too)

>
> > Re: I'm Starting To Worry About The Denyer's Health
>
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > With the administered beating this nerd is absorbing, one

might

> be wondering just how much loss he can endure. Well, from my
> > experience these jerks can absorb a HUGE amount of punishment,
but
> this might be getting to be too much. I've noticed it takes the
> dicker twice as long to respond to my messages than it takes me

to

> reply to his. One can only imagine the misery he goes through in
> doing so. Sounds like fun!
>
> > It is fun. I enjoy making you look foolish. There's no way you
can
> > perpetrate your con with your impotence exposed for everyone to
see.
>
> It certainly is as I've said, and it'll just keep getting better

as

> long as you don't pop thru your roof with the high blood

pressure.

115/70

> The truth always finds it's mark, and it found you long ago here.
My
> job is to keep wailing away at you until you admit your a fool
> gambler who's cursed his former loving wife with the same disease.

Same old hollow words yet again. Hey, opt-shill, you better have a
talk with the monkey boy, he's lost it entirely.

and same direct hit every single time! Oh, how you must be reeling
with anger and desolation right about now.....To my delight!

>
> > > One thing I don't want to see is the dicker getting sick - or
> worse.That would be awful. There'd be nothing to look forward to

on

> here anymore. I enjoy verbally abusing the geek, making him feel
> smaller thanhe degenerated into when he allowed pathological
gambling
> to take overhis (and unfortunately, her) lives, and it's just

sooo

> preciouswatching him come unraveled over not understanding modern
> technologyassociated within his own geek-field when he was
employed.
> And justwhere else can you find someone so willing to deny and

lie

> abouteverything he makes himself look foolish about? I need him

for

> laughs.(insert thankful prayer).
>
> > It was nice of RIV to give us some more insight into what is
going
> on in Robbie's life. RIV, keep up the good work.
>
> What else could you say?

Nothing else, just the facts, as usual.

What else could you possibly say?

···

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

> > ---------------------
> > Re: Now Isn't This Special.....
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> > wrote:
> > > From a post tonight on vpFREE-----------
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------

-

> > > "Overall for the trip we didn't hit any royals and finished

down

> > > about $2800. However, the $165 cashback from the Venetian and
$150
> > > sweepstakes win did bring this down to under $2500 in

absolute

> cash.Just about where I would expect to be with 100K coin-in and

no

> > royal.
> > > rhizome"
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------

--

> > > I guess the math came through for these people, yesiree! Just
> where they 'expected to be' after $100k of "playing like the
addicts
> do"! And no doubt they bought every book by Jean Scott, Dan

Paymar,

> and all of Bob Dancer's strategy cards just so it wouldn't be a
> surprise when it happened the way the math predicted it would!

But

> gee, they got their cash back and hit the sweepstakes BIG time,
> didn't they...... And you know what? If they get a chance to chat
> with any of the gurus or Mr. Wizards....even our own little
> dicky....there really will be no problem after all. If they can
> somehow manufacture that they played in 'positive EV' situations,
> then they've lost absolutely nothing. What they did, by golly, is
WIN
> because they 'played with an edge'! Now all they gotta do is

figure

> out how to deposit all those phantom bucks. At 1.5%, that's 1500

of

> them! But you know what? Little dicky can help them there too. He
> makes deposits 'all the time'!!
>
> > I think Rob's jealousy here is very telling. An individual

posts

an
> > honest account of his trip which resulted in a loss. Everyone

has

> had losses and this is nothing special. However, Rob, who has
claimed
> > that APers never admit losing, now comes unglued when a loss is
> > reported.
>
> AHAHAH HA HA HA!! I knew you couldn't let that one die little
dicky!
> You skipped the point and are now caught again--

You had a point? All you did was go on and on about someone losing
which you admit doing yourself. If that's suppose to be a point

then I think your logic is leaking bigtime.

If ever someone gave away a weak answering position as you have here,
i haven't yet seen it.

> gee, that's starting
> to sound like a broken record about you. This fool poster has

been

so
> overwhelmingly misled by the gurus and math idiots, that he now
> thinks it's allright to lose because "that's what the math
predicted
> would happen with no royals"!! If I though he could be saved I'd
> write him a personal message. But he obviously clings to the
Queen's
> baloney and Dancer's and yours and Paymars etc. etc., and he'll

be

a
> loser all his life like the rest of his mentors are.

So, I guess Rob really is claiming he NEVER loses. ROTFLMAO. You
should have stuck to your high school fantasies.

227-31

>
> > Come on Rob, admit it. You are so jealous of APers that you

will

> say anything ... even if it contradicts what you've previously

said

> over and over again.
>
> I wonder if any of that'll ever happen.....

It just did ... again.

OK, let's tally up Rob's facts ... 0+0+...+0 = 0.

I think how your mind works is interesting.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com ,"rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> >
wrote:

> > > > > It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that

he mentions my name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine
all of these threads together to limit the number of items posted.
They're all pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself
so often.

> > > But little dicky, I thought you KNEW this was all about

humiliating such a farce as you! And admit it, the only reason you
pasted all the posts is so you could delete as much ridicule and
truths about you as possible. C'mon....play fair............

> If that was the reason then why didn't I delete it all or even

10%? Sorry, little man, but your lies are easily refuted.

All part of your what you think is the 'mystery' about you as you

play out a fantasy you weren't even allowed to chase as a nerdy
youth.

Once again, Rob can only utter more idiotic babbles when presented
with clear facts. Not only does it lend credence to my statement but
it makes him look foolish as well.

> > > > > I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies

in Rob's posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his lastest
trip to Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime he
gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this, if
you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the goal?
If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.

> > > Probably a vaild question----if you were talking to a fellow

addict! People who raise goals for no reason have little discipline
and fall more into you and your wife's sad category than anywhere
else. I play only for goals and these days only when there's
something my children may want.

> Sorry, Rob but you've claimed many times that discipline is a

big reason for your success. Now, you change tactics in mid-stream.

Discipline? Obviously, einstein. Discipline. You've got to be

kidding.

My thoughts exactly. Why did you deviate from your stated $2500 win
goal?

> Not to mention, you drove all the way over to Laughlin. If

winning was such a sure thing, why not stay an extra hour and get the
whole $2500? Do you actually think anyone will believe your excuse.
ROTFLMAO.

I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from less than

an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your inferiority
complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +. Seems your
facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.

My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.

> > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never

responded to this question so let me ask him again. How can you have
only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session
losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just didn't
think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about his
gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the
truth.

> > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-up me

you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already
completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment before,
but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or
close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read Rule #6
again from my strategy page. It'll

> Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up with

a new lie.

That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the rule--as

I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a geek must
feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure to review
the facts! Oh what joy!!

I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be, is far
more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?

> Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As everyone

else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a progression
is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So, let's
take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at $25 and
7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to have
had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now a 259
total tries.

With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a myriad

of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has trouble
following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times. Sorry (not
really!) you feel so bad again!

I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you stated 10%
of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.

> a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about 10%

of the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up
another lie.

Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25? I know

at the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of course--
where you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in
denomination) these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm surprised.

Let's see ... nothing here but babbling. On to next lie.

> b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly impossible. A

positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of winning
any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
hilarious.

'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you either

are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at $25,
and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.

Rob's brain isn't working too well here. He proudly claims an
impossible win rate at an individual level AND, more importantly, he
also claims a TOTAL of 31 losses when you must have lost each time at
the lower level to get to a higher level. Robbie can't lie well
enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob just said
he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's also claimed
only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25 level 30
times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's lying.)

> c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of 31

losses out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80% win
rate equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-40%. Not
to mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to cover the
losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more hilarious.

I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-information

about how I play and what I've accomplished, you might be able to do
a worthwhile analysis.

Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.

> d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his

current win level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25 level if
needed. Now, I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In fact, out
of 1000 sims I didn't get a single win total equal to Rob's claims.
Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last one.

And what of these sims anyway, when you are totally clueless of the

strategy. You';ve shown remarkable inability to comprehend what you
read. Either that, or you know what you read and deliberately mess it
up here so you can ramble on about how it 'doesn't' work as i say it
has. But that's hardly the geek way. If you don't correct yourself in
public here then it's for sure you'll be doing it thru the night
instead of the usual tossing & turning over my success.

ROTFLMAO. I wonder what his next con will entail.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com ,"rsing1111" <rsinger1111@> >
wrote:
> > > > > > It's nice to know that Robbie is so jealous of me that
he mentions my name in most of his posts. I've decided to combine
all of these threads together to limit the number of items posted.
They're all pretty much the same anyway, since Rob repeats himself
so often.
> > > > But little dicky, I thought you KNEW this was all about
humiliating such a farce as you! And admit it, the only reason you
pasted all the posts is so you could delete as much ridicule and
truths about you as possible. C'mon....play fair............
> > If that was the reason then why didn't I delete it all or even
10%? Sorry, little man, but your lies are easily refuted.
> All part of your what you think is the 'mystery' about you as you
play out a fantasy you weren't even allowed to chase as a nerdy
youth.

Once again, Rob can only utter more idiotic babbles when presented
with clear facts. Not only does it lend credence to my statement

but

it makes him look foolish as well.

> > > > > > I do want to highlight some of the latest descrepancies
in Rob's posts. The lastest is the change in win goals on his

lastest

trip to Laughlin. So far this year Rob has claimed a win everytime

he

gambled. Now, he lowers his win goal to $1500. Ask yourself this,

if

you were winning every time you played, why would you lower the

goal?

If anything, most of us would raise the goal. Food for thought.
> > > > Probably a vaild question----if you were talking to a

fellow

addict! People who raise goals for no reason have little discipline
and fall more into you and your wife's sad category than anywhere
else. I play only for goals and these days only when there's
something my children may want.
> > Sorry, Rob but you've claimed many times that discipline is a
big reason for your success. Now, you change tactics in mid-

stream.

> Discipline? Obviously, einstein. Discipline. You've got to be
kidding.

My thoughts exactly. Why did you deviate from your stated $2500 win
goal?

Huh? Deends on which strategy or strategies I choose to play. the
only one witha minimum $2500 goal is the single-play.

> > Not to mention, you drove all the way over to Laughlin. If
winning was such a sure thing, why not stay an extra hour and get

the

whole $2500? Do you actually think anyone will believe your excuse.
ROTFLMAO.
> I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from less than
an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your inferiority
complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +. Seems

your

facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.

My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.

Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following what I'm
saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts right you
have to know what to look at. You never have.

> > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never
responded to this question so let me ask him again. How can you

have

only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31 session
losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just

didn't

think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about his
gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he says as the
truth.
> > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-up

me

you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already
completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment before,
but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or
close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read Rule

#6

again from my strategy page. It'll
> > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up

with

a new lie.
> That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the rule--as
I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a geek

must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure to
review the facts! Oh what joy!!

I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be, is far
more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?

your version was to guess however necessary to create a scenario
where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But you ended
up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.

> > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As

everyone

else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a

progression

is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So,

let's

take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at $25

and

7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to have
had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now a

259

total tries.
> With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a

myriad

of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has trouble
following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times. Sorry

(not

really!) you feel so bad again!

I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you stated 10%
of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.

Never said that. You did. I can't even count your misrepresentations
and lies.

> > a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about 10%
of the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up
another lie.
> Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25? I know
at the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of course--
where you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in
denomination) these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm surprised.

Let's see ... nothing here but babbling. On to next lie.

> > b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly impossible.

A

positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of winning
any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
hilarious.
> 'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you

either

are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at

$25,

and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.

Rob's brain isn't working too well here. He proudly claims an
impossible win rate at an individual level AND, more importantly,

he also claims a TOTAL of 31 losses when you must have lost each time
at the lower level to get to a higher level.

I understand you want it to be your way, but this isn't Burger King
(althoug I AM King). So now you write my play rules and want each
level loss to be counted as a session loss? No wonder you have
question marks in your nightmares.....

Robbie can't lie well

enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob just said
he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's also

claimed

only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25 level 30
times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's lying.)

More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY level is a
loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a win?? Do
you EVER read what you write and/or review it for accuracy so you
don't continue to look this stupid? But more to your point. If you
care to read my site again, you'll see my record is a combination of
ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more recently
since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other strategies. It's a miracle
that you can put your shoes on each day without my directing you how
to.

> > c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of 31
losses out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80% win
rate equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-40%.

Not

to mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to cover

the

losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more hilarious.

The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy over my
overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You also need
to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my strategies.

> I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-

information

about how I play and what I've accomplished, you might be able to

do

a worthwhile analysis.

Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.

And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.

> > d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his
current win level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25 level if
needed. Now, I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In fact,

out

of 1000 sims I didn't get a single win total equal to Rob's

claims.

Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last one.
> And what of these sims anyway, when you are totally clueless of

the

strategy. You've shown remarkable inability to comprehend what you
read. Either that, or you know what you read and deliberately mess

it

up here so you can ramble on about how it 'doesn't' work as i say

it

has. But that's hardly the geek way. If you don't correct yourself

in

public here then it's for sure you'll be doing it thru the night
instead of the usual tossing & turning over my success.

ROTFLMAO. I wonder what his next con will entail.

I'll use your line: Just the facts, as usual.....

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > Not to mention, you drove all the way over to Laughlin. If
> winning was such a sure thing, why not stay an extra hour and get
the
> whole $2500? Do you actually think anyone will believe your

excuse.

> ROTFLMAO.
> > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from less

than

> an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your inferiority
> complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +. Seems
your
> facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
>
> My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.

Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following what I'm
saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts right you
have to know what to look at. You never have.

You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no discipline.

>
> > > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never
> responded to this question so let me ask him again. How can you
have
> only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31

session

> losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just
didn't
> think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
> EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about his
> gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he says as

the

> truth.
> > > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-

up

me
> you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already
> completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment

before,

> but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses (or
> close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read

Rule

#6
> again from my strategy page. It'll
> > > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up
with
> a new lie.
> > That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the rule--

as

> I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a geek
must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure to
review the facts! Oh what joy!!
>
> I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be, is

far

> more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?

your version was to guess however necessary to create a scenario
where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But you

ended

up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.

LMAO. Scrambling does not hide your lies.

>
> > > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As
everyone
> else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a
progression
> is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So,
let's
> take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at $25
and
> 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to have
> had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now a
259
> total tries.
> > With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a
myriad
> of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has trouble
> following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times. Sorry
(not
> really!) you feel so bad again!
>
> I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you stated

10%

> of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.

Never said that. You did. I can't even count your

misrepresentations

and lies.

Chalk up another lie ...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843

>
> > > a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about

10%

> of the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up
> another lie.
> > Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25? I

know

> at the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of course--
> where you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in
> denomination) these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm

surprised.

>
> Let's see ... nothing here but babbling. On to next lie.
>
> > > b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly

impossible.

A
> positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of

winning

> any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
> hilarious.
> > 'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you
either
> are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at
$25,
> and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.
>
> Rob's brain isn't working too well here. He proudly claims an
> impossible win rate at an individual level AND, more importantly,
he also claims a TOTAL of 31 losses when you must have lost each

time

at the lower level to get to a higher level.

I understand you want it to be your way, but this isn't Burger King
(althoug I AM King). So now you write my play rules and want each
level loss to be counted as a session loss? No wonder you have
question marks in your nightmares.....

LMAO. To lose a session at $25 you had to lose at $10. It's as easy
as that. The numbers don't lie.

Robbie can't lie well
> enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob just

said

> he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's also
claimed
> only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25 level

30

> times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's lying.)

More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY level is a
loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a win??

It can.

Do
you EVER read what you write and/or review it for accuracy so you
don't continue to look this stupid? But more to your point. If you
care to read my site again,

Still haven't been there. All I go by is the lies you post here.

you'll see my record is a combination of
ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more

recently

since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other strategies. It's a

miracle

that you can put your shoes on each day without my directing you

how

to.

Seems like a lot of words and yet no evidence to refute my
statements. The con has been exposed.

>
> > > c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of

31

> losses out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80%

win

> rate equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-40%.
Not
> to mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to cover
the
> losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more

hilarious.

The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy over my
overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You also need
to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my strategies.

Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies. It's a
little late to start whining.

> > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-
information
> about how I play and what I've accomplished, you might be able to
do
> a worthwhile analysis.
>
> Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.

And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.

I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's in denial.

>
> > > d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his
> current win level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25 level

if

> needed. Now, I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In fact,
out
> of 1000 sims I didn't get a single win total equal to Rob's
claims.
> Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last one.
> > And what of these sims anyway, when you are totally clueless of
the
> strategy. You've shown remarkable inability to comprehend what

you

> read. Either that, or you know what you read and deliberately

mess

it
> up here so you can ramble on about how it 'doesn't' work as i say
it
> has. But that's hardly the geek way. If you don't correct

yourself

in
> public here then it's for sure you'll be doing it thru the night
> instead of the usual tossing & turning over my success.
>
> ROTFLMAO. I wonder what his next con will entail.

I'll use your line: Just the facts, as usual.....

Well, now ... that would be a NICE change.

By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be posting
some interesting facts later on.

> > > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from less
than
> > an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your

inferiority

> > complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +. Seems
> your
> > facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
> >
> > My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.
>
> Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following what

I'm

> saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts right

you

> have to know what to look at. You never have.

You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no discipline.

Let's see.....Go into the casino everyday and pound away at the
machines making believe I have a 1% advantage, or set whatever goal
I'd like, attain it, and go home when I hit it?? That's a real tough
choice, and I wonder which one requires more discipline.....

> >
> > > > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob never
> > responded to this question so let me ask him again. How can

you

> have
> > only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31
session
> > losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just
> didn't
> > think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
> > EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about his
> > gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he says as
the
> > truth.
> > > > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to one-
up
> me
> > you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's already
> > completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment
before,
> > but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses

(or

> > close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read
Rule
> #6
> > again from my strategy page. It'll
> > > > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come up
> with
> > a new lie.
> > > That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the rule--
as
> > I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a

geek

> must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure to
> review the facts! Oh what joy!!
> >
> > I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be, is
far
> > more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?
>
> your version was to guess however necessary to create a scenario
> where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But you
ended
> up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.

LMAO. Scrambling does not hide your lies.

Simple truth little dicky.....simple truth. I enjoy watching you
squirm with envy over my unparrelled success, and as you make up
scenarios about my strategies to help ease your pain, I watch as it
actually increases it. Talk about thrills!

> >
> > > > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As
> everyone
> > else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a
> progression
> > is equivalent to any session played without a progression. So,
> let's
> > take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at

$25

> and
> > 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to

have

> > had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is now

a

> 259
> > total tries.
> > > With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a
> myriad
> > of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has trouble
> > following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times.

Sorry

> (not
> > really!) you feel so bad again!
> >
> > I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you stated
10%
> > of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.
>
> Never said that. You did. I can't even count your
misrepresentations
> and lies.

Chalk up another lie ...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843

I knew it! You're lying yet again! I was curious as to how that could
have been true, and once again here's proof that you made it up. As I
was babysitting you thru my play strategy's groundrules so you could
run your now-stupid sims with as much educated probability as
possible, I ASKED A QUESTION, and get ready--here it is, directly
from post #2843!: "Also, is it possible to run 10% of the sessions at
6 levels?" And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually played 3
times! What a dufus!! And you were told the basis of my input was
what was assumed would be the case at the strategy's inception and
wasn't reality. So after you finish crying over another letdown, let
me hear your excuse for running head-first into that same wall this
time! And I though geeks worked only with correct figures.....

> > > > a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level about
10%
> > of the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk up
> > another lie.
> > > Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25? I
know
> > at the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of

course--

> > where you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in
> > denomination) these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm
surprised.
> >
> > Let's see ... nothing here but babbling. On to next lie.
> >
> > > > b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly
impossible.
> A
> > positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of
winning
> > any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
> > hilarious.
> > > 'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you
> either
> > are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8 at
> $25,
> > and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.
> >
> > Rob's brain isn't working too well here. He proudly claims an
> > impossible win rate at an individual level AND, more

importantly,

> he also claims a TOTAL of 31 losses when you must have lost each
time
> at the lower level to get to a higher level.
>
> I understand you want it to be your way, but this isn't Burger

King

> (althoug I AM King). So now you write my play rules and want each
> level loss to be counted as a session loss? No wonder you have
> question marks in your nightmares.....

LMAO. To lose a session at $25 you had to lose at $10. It's as easy
as that. The numbers don't lie.

And to lose for the 12th time at hand #16 means you wouldn've had to
lose 11 times before it. You gonna count those as 11 session losses
just as you would count each denominational loss within the strategy
until the goal is hit, a loss? How stupid. Are you THAT desperate to
come up with a variation of strategy to fit in that geek head?

> Robbie can't lie well
> > enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob just
said
> > he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's also
> claimed
> > only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25

level

30
> > times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's lying.)
>
> More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY level is

a loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a win??

It can.

Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you don't
continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are claiming
my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants the Dunce
Cap on your head even more permanently.

> Do
> you EVER read what you write and/or review it for accuracy so you
> don't continue to look this stupid? But more to your point. If

you care to read my site again,

Still haven't been there. All I go by is the lies you post here.

Another lie. A BIG one.

> you'll see my record is a combination of
> ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more
recently since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other strategies.

It's a miracle that you can put your shoes on each day without my
directing you how to.

Seems like a lot of words and yet no evidence to refute my
statements. The con has been exposed.

Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission of not
having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute after
proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both shoes on
each day without help!

> >
> > > > c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total of
31
> > losses out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another 80%
win
> > rate equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-

40%.

> Not
> > to mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to

cover

> the
> > losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more
hilarious.
>
> The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy over

my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You also
need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my strategies.

Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies. It's a
little late to start whining.

It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every time you
attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't happen to a
better gut either!
  

> > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-
> information about how I play and what I've accomplished, you

might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.

> >
> > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
>
> And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.

I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's in denial.

The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater. You're
argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your eyes, and
you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?

> >
> > > > d) When I came up with the 1% probability of reaching his
> > current win level it assumed ALL sessions included the $25

level if needed. Now, I suspect the number will be less than .1%. In
fact, out of 1000 sims I didn't get a single win total equal to
Rob's claims. Sorry Rob, this lie isn't any better than the last
one.

> > > And what of these sims anyway, when you are totally clueless

of

> the
> > strategy. You've shown remarkable inability to comprehend what
you
> > read. Either that, or you know what you read and deliberately
mess
> it
> > up here so you can ramble on about how it 'doesn't' work as i

say

> it
> > has. But that's hardly the geek way. If you don't correct
yourself
> in
> > public here then it's for sure you'll be doing it thru the

night

> > instead of the usual tossing & turning over my success.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. I wonder what his next con will entail.
>
> I'll use your line: Just the facts, as usual.....

Well, now ... that would be a NICE change.

Then you agree with my statements for a change. Good job!

By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be posting
some interesting facts later on.

And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to how you've
destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the title (and it
truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE FACE OF
PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even rhymes....

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be

posting

> some interesting facts later on.

And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to how you've
destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the title (and

it

truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE FACE OF
PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even rhymes....

I've been reading ("Video Poker - the Face of Pain", by Shepard king)
sent to me by Rob. The book is by a victim of addiction. I thought
I'd take a little time to analyze some of the aspects of this book
and Rob's comments handwritten on various pages.

1) The addict in this book got caught up in trying to beat the
casinos by attempting to come up with a "system". He first tried his
version of Martingale at blackjack. After quickly failing at that he
tried video poker. His system was based on figuring out a pattern. He
would vary his bet based on what he thought was a pattern. Of course,
he failed miserably which was one of the factors that led to his
gambling problems. Does this sound a little like Bob and optdouble?
Absolutely. Isn't it interesting that Rob Singer, who goes on and on
about addiction, is supporting the exact behavior that can lead to
gambling problems.

2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book the victim
was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is random. He had no
knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short coins
impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money management
and bankroll considerations.

3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went from
machine to machine until I found one in a good count cycle." Rob's
comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that is losing
regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems to think
that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you notice? This guy
LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a pattern it
evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.

4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that are
potential victims. I've also seen 3%. However, the point to keep in
mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they have the
personality traits required. As such, this is basically a cross
section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are likely to be
victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly all APers
are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is somehow a
drawing force for people with the right personality traits. This
doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply hooked on a
few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a system.
APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
mathematically proven strategies.

5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I wanted to
move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in LV is
similar to this individual who stated this after a big win. Rob just
doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is because he had
the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many big wins
and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I never quit
jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my LV
residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've been playing
VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't understand that 19
out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But then, that
would blow is entire reason for existence. His con.

6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing constant
was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of all other
activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does this relate to
me? I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies, etc). I
still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I guess Rob
was trying to point out all the differences bewteen myself and an
addicted gambler.

Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems that
gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even a few
APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted APers
will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of AP.

Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what he always
does when presented with facts.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be
posting some interesting facts later on.
>
> And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to how

you've

> destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the title (and
it
> truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE FACE

OF

> PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even rhymes....

I've been reading ("Video Poker - the Face of Pain", by Shepard

king)

sent to me by Rob. The book is by a victim of addiction. I thought
I'd take a little time to analyze some of the aspects of this book
and Rob's comments handwritten on various pages.

1) The addict in this book got caught up in trying to beat the
casinos by attempting to come up with a "system". He first tried

his version of Martingale at blackjack. After quickly failing at that
he tried video poker. His system was based on figuring out a pattern.
He would vary his bet based on what he thought was a pattern. Of
course, he failed miserably which was one of the factors that led to
his gambling problems. Does this sound a little like Bob and
optdouble? Absolutely. Isn't it interesting that Rob Singer, who goes
on and on about addiction, is supporting the exact behavior that can
lead to gambling problems.

Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not only are you
lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made you feel
like poopoo.

2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book the

victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is random. He had
no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short coins
impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money management
and bankroll considerations.

ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are inflicted with
the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos. No, the poor
guy that mirrors your video poker life of addiction is not an AP, but
for you to single out that unimportant fact is just another knife in
your own chest.

3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went from
machine to machine until I found one in a good count cycle." Rob's
comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that is losing
regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems to

think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you notice? This
guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a pattern it

evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.

Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count cycle' to
this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or cold
cycle---but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I don't
remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about machines
is very different, because I don't stick around for the 'evaporation'
phase. And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely do. My
record is a testament to that undeniable fact.

4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that are
potential victims. I've also seen 3%.

I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall gamblers on
CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending group--
video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over 50%.

However, the point to keep in

mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they have the
personality traits required. As such, this is basically a cross
section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are likely to

be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly all APers

are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is somehow a
drawing force for people with the right personality traits. This
doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply hooked on a
few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a system.
APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
mathematically proven strategies.

Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you. Another
collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep with your
eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you unless you
create the theory.

5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I wanted

to

move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in LV is
similar to this individual who stated this after a big win. Rob

just

doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is because he had
the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many big

wins

and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I never quit
jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my LV
residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've been

playing

VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't understand that

19

out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But then, that
would blow is entire reason for existence. His con.

Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment you
reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be closer to the
machines. Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos every
day? HA! It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling book about
people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along with your
rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher piece of meat
on your plate.

6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing constant
was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of all

other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does this
relate to me?

The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe you have
other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the thought of
video poker that there really is nothing else in your life that comes
close to measuring up to that grab.

I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies, etc). I

still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I guess

Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen myself and an

addicted gambler.

You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone you don't
live to play video poker. You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
hand says they have it all under control, then on the other brags
about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months, then denies everything I
say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV, and then says "I
only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live body to
believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful minimalization
of a problem---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning prowess there in
some type of genuflection move---you RADIATE problems to the rest of
us. And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who has
ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just like you
claim to be!

Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems that
gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even a few
APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted APers
will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of AP.

Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what he

always does when presented with facts.

Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make another
desperate attempt at catching your breath.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be
> posting some interesting facts later on.
> >
> > And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to how
you've
> > destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the title

(and

> it
> > truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE FACE
OF
> > PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even rhymes....
>
> I've been reading ("Video Poker - the Face of Pain", by Shepard
king)
> sent to me by Rob. The book is by a victim of addiction. I

thought

> I'd take a little time to analyze some of the aspects of this

book

> and Rob's comments handwritten on various pages.
>
> 1) The addict in this book got caught up in trying to beat the
> casinos by attempting to come up with a "system". He first tried
his version of Martingale at blackjack. After quickly failing at

that

he tried video poker. His system was based on figuring out a

pattern.

He would vary his bet based on what he thought was a pattern. Of
course, he failed miserably which was one of the factors that led

to

his gambling problems. Does this sound a little like Bob and
optdouble? Absolutely. Isn't it interesting that Rob Singer, who

goes

on and on about addiction, is supporting the exact behavior that

can

lead to gambling problems.

Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not only are

you

lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made you feel
like poopoo.

LMAO. The only thing that "hit home" was you little man. You say one
thing and do another. Shame on you for supporting the EXACT behavior
that leads to addiction. I thought it was refreshing that MY
viewpoint would be a roadblock to addiction. Is Robbie really a shill
for the casinos? You be the judge.

>
> 2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book the
victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is random. He

had

no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short coins
impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money

management

and bankroll considerations.

ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are inflicted

with

the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos.

Sorry to come in with the facts again. However, the number of trips
to the casino is not a reasonable measure of addiction. If your
statement were true then everyday workers would all be addicted to
their jobs. Church goers would be addicted to church. Anyone who
regularly exercises would be addicted to exercise. I could go on and
on but I think everyone else gets the picture.

No, the poor
guy that mirrors your video poker life of addiction is not an AP,

but

for you to single out that unimportant fact is just another knife

in

your own chest.

Did I mention babbling at the end of the last post? Robbie comes
through again.

> 3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went from
> machine to machine until I found one in a good count cycle."

Rob's

> comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that is

losing

> regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems to
think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you notice?

This

guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a pattern

it

> evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.

Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count cycle' to
this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or cold
cycle---

What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your addiction
promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.

but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I don't
remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about machines
is very different, because I don't stick around for

the 'evaporation'

phase.

What part of "went from machine to machine" didn't you understand?
This guy kept moving just like you just said. Sorry to blow your con
again.

And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely do. My
record is a testament to that undeniable fact.

LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who wins the
lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in 1000 chance
of success and we already know you've been lying with the 30>22
factoid.

>
> 4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that are
> potential victims. I've also seen 3%.

I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall gamblers on
CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending group--
video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over 50%.

Of course you did. I'm sure if you define addiction to your liking
you can come up with any number you like. Try this one, Addict:
Anyone who visits a casino more than once every 3 months. Now, all
APers would be addicts ... and, so would little Robbie. The 3-5%
number is based on gamblers who've come forward with admitted
gambling problems and projecting that to the entire gambling
population.

However, the point to keep in
> mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they have the
> personality traits required. As such, this is basically a cross
> section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are likely

to

be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly all

APers

> are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is somehow a
> drawing force for people with the right personality traits. This
> doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply hooked on

a

> few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a system.
> APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> mathematically proven strategies.

Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you. Another
collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep with

your

eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you unless you
create the theory.

Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the book and
analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.

>
> 5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I wanted
to
> move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in LV is
> similar to this individual who stated this after a big win. Rob
just
> doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is because he

had

> the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many big
wins
> and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I never

quit

> jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my LV
> residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've been
playing
> VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't understand

that

19
> out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But then,

that

> would blow his entire reason for existence. His con.

Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment you
reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be closer to

the

machines.

LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his asserted
lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms for 6
years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish every
time to try to save face.

Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos every
day? HA!

Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic attempts to
save face up your sleeve?

It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling book about
people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along with your
rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher piece of meat
on your plate.

Did I mention babbling?

>
> 6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing

constant

> was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of all
other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does this
relate to me?

The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe you have
other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the thought

of

video poker that there really is nothing else in your life that

comes

close to measuring up to that grab.

This insert before my description of what I do shows how much little
Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the description
but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies anyway. Just makes
you look foolish, little man. Thanks.

I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies, etc). I
> still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I guess
Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen myself and

an

> addicted gambler.

You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone you don't
live to play video poker.

No, I think everyone here can easily tell I don't. Only you, little
man, lie about it. Robbie, who needs to insult any and everyone who
follows proven mathematical AP, and does so in order to spread his
CON.

You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
hand says they have it all under control, then on the other brags
about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,

Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a simple
response to your statements that I always lost.

then denies everything I
say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,

That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?

and then says "I
only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live body to
believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful

minimalization

of a problem

Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only gamble 3
hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to gamble 6
hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different then your
working on old cars.

---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning prowess there

in

some type of genuflection move

If "running right back" is waiting a week then your definition may be
a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my responses were
to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if the facts and
your lies don't mesh.

---you RADIATE problems to the rest of
us.

Assert lie.

And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who has
ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just like you
claim to be!

I only deal in facts. If you can't handle that then just say so.

> Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems that
> gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even a few
> APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted APers
> will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of AP.

> Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what he
always does when presented with facts.

Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make another
desperate attempt at catching your breath.

ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your address.
Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll be
> > posting some interesting facts later on.
> > >
> > > And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to how
> you've
> > > destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the title
(and
> > it
> > > truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE

FACE

> OF
> > > PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even

rhymes....

> >
> > I've been reading ("Video Poker - the Face of Pain", by Shepard
> king)
> > sent to me by Rob. The book is by a victim of addiction. I
thought
> > I'd take a little time to analyze some of the aspects of this
book
> > and Rob's comments handwritten on various pages.
> >
> > 1) The addict in this book got caught up in trying to beat the
> > casinos by attempting to come up with a "system". He first

tried

> his version of Martingale at blackjack. After quickly failing at
that
> he tried video poker. His system was based on figuring out a
pattern.
> He would vary his bet based on what he thought was a pattern. Of
> course, he failed miserably which was one of the factors that led
to
> his gambling problems. Does this sound a little like Bob and
> optdouble? Absolutely. Isn't it interesting that Rob Singer, who
goes
> on and on about addiction, is supporting the exact behavior that
can
> lead to gambling problems.
>
> Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not only are
you lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made you

feel like poopoo.

LMAO. The only thing that "hit home" was you little man. You say

one thing and do another. Shame on you for supporting the EXACT
behavior that leads to addiction. I thought it was refreshing that MY
viewpoint would be a roadblock to addiction. Is Robbie really a shill
for the casinos? You be the judge.

It's appearing more like you believe YOU'RE being judged by this
book....and you ARE. Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-gambling,
everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of seriously
inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths. You fit EVERY
alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease, and denial-
-which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug on top of
it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....

> >
> > 2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book the
> victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is random. He
had
> no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short

coins

> impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money
management
> and bankroll considerations.
>
> ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are inflicted
with the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos.

Sorry to come in with the facts again.

Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!

However, the number of trips

to the casino is not a reasonable measure of addiction. If your
statement were true then everyday workers would all be addicted to
their jobs. Church goers would be addicted to church. Anyone who
regularly exercises would be addicted to exercise. I could go on

and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.

There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed into denial
again as we speak. Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is simply an
addict's way of creating a net of false security around their sick
activity.

> No, the poor guy that mirrors your video poker life of addiction

is not an AP, but for you to single out that unimportant fact is just
another knife in your own chest.

Did I mention babbling at the end of the last post? Robbie comes
through again.

And that knife seems to have been twisting around in there for quite
a while.....

>
> > 3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went

from

> > machine to machine until I found one in a good count cycle."
Rob's
> > comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that is
losing
> > regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems to
> think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you notice?
This
> guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a pattern
it
> > evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.
>
> Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count cycle' to
> this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or cold
> cycle---

What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your addiction
promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.

"good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't call
that 'good' because I don't play for them. Your boy did here. It's
probably 'good' to you because it'll keep you at the addict machines
longer.

> but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
> certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I don't
> remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about

machines is very different, because I don't stick around for

the 'evaporation' phase.

What part of "went from machine to machine" didn't you understand?
This guy kept moving just like you just said. Sorry to blow your

con again.

So now you're contradicting yourself. You always say it doesn't
matter if you stay at one or play a thousand machines in a day. Now
you say it matters and makes him lose. Get your story straight before
you try to make up analogies.

> And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely do.

My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.

LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who wins the
lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in 1000

chance of success and we already know you've been lying with the
30>22 factoid.

In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking my chances
of success have been 1 in a million. A geek will do whatever's
necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's eating
away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real. Eventually,
it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've never
existed either.

> >
> > 4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that are
> > potential victims. I've also seen 3%.
>
> I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall gamblers

on CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending group-
video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over 50%.

Of course you did. I'm sure if you define addiction to your liking
you can come up with any number you like. Try this one, Addict:
Anyone who visits a casino more than once every 3 months. Now, all
APers would be addicts ... and, so would little Robbie. The 3-5%
number is based on gamblers who've come forward with admitted
gambling problems and projecting that to the entire gambling
population.

You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of going thru
all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the facts that
hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And since
DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!

>
> However, the point to keep in
> > mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they have

the

> > personality traits required. As such, this is basically a cross
> > section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are likely
to
> be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly all
APers
> > are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is somehow a
> > drawing force for people with the right personality traits.

This

> > doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply hooked

on

a
> > few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a

system.

> > APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> > mathematically proven strategies.
>
> Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you. Another
> collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep with
your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you unless

you create the theory.

Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the book

and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.

?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the nightmare
you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You keep blaming
all woes on 'other people' - which is understandable because while
you're in the midst of your wretched dream, the burden is NEVER your
own. Didn't you realize that when you blamed your addiction on your
wife, that you had this telling 'blame' problem to begin with?

> >
> > 5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I

wanted

> to
> > move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in LV

is

> > similar to this individual who stated this after a big win. Rob
> just
> > doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is because he
had
> > the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many big
> wins
> > and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I never
quit
> > jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my LV
> > residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've been
> playing
> > VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't understand
that
> 19
> > out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But then,
that
> > would blow his entire reason for existence. His con.
>
> Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment you
> reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be closer to
the machines.

LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his asserted
lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms for 6
years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish every
time to try to save face.

Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring. For all
we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over whether
to move or not....and as usual, you got your way. Now you know why
she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a compromise
where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know that. The
addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long before
the final and full move is made.

> Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos every
> day? HA!

Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic attempts to
save face up your sleeve?

It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky. Minimalizing
the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.

> It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
> like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling book

about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along with
your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher piece of
meat on your plate.

Did I mention babbling?

I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those who move to
LV too.....if I were the infected fool.

> >
> > 6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing
constant
> > was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of all
> other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does this
> relate to me?
>
> The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe you have
> other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the thought
of video poker that there really is nothing else in your life that
comes close to measuring up to that grab.

This insert before my description of what I do shows how much

little Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the
description but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies anyway.
Just makes you look foolish, little man. Thanks.

All your famous 'insert' tells is the interests you've let go of
because of your gambling problem. Going to the gym once in 3 months
would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the machines
such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest". It's all a feel-
good joke and you know it. Stop fooling yourself.

>
> I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies, etc). I
> > still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I

guess

> Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen myself

and

an
> > addicted gambler.
>
> You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone you

don't

> live to play video poker.

No, I think everyone here can easily tell I don't. Only you, little
man, lie about it. Robbie, who needs to insult any and everyone who
follows proven mathematical AP, and does so in order to spread his
CON.

The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it yet. The
rest of us can, CON.

> You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> hand says they have it all under control, then on the other brags
> about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,

Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a simple
response to your statements that I always lost.

'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under control'
yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a HUGE
amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period of time.
And just like Dancer's baloney claims, my '6 month run' should not be
indicative of such compulsive play BEFORE or SINCE that 6-month
period, nosiree! I have it ALL under control now, yes I do, and i had
it all under control before too! That 6 month period was simply the
period of fame that I chose to claim my prowess within!!"

> then denies everything I
> say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,

That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?

Why would anyone expect you to tell the truth about this? After all
your denials and lies on just about every other subject, you don't
think you've laid out your legacy?

> and then says "I
> only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live body

to believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful
minimalization of a problem

Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only gamble 3
hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to gamble 6
hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different then your
working on old cars.

There's that analogy of degenerate sickness to productive activities
again! When cornered with sense, come out denying and
scrambling....with that ol' needy confidence-building spirit!

> ---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
> into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning prowess

there in some type of genuflection move

If "running right back" is waiting a week then your definition may

be a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my responses
were to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if the facts
and your lies don't mesh.

OK, which of you was sick for a week and held the addict party back?
good thing though. It kept your losses down.

> ---you RADIATE problems to the rest of us.

Assert lie.

Prove you don't.

> And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who has
> ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just like you
> claim to be!

I only deal in facts. If you can't handle that then just say so.

I think we've seen just what kind of 'facts' you bring to the
table.....That's kinda what most of the LV cocktail waitresses call
those two bumps on their chests too!

>
> > Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems that
> > gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even a

few

> > APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted

APers

> > will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of AP.
>
> > Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what he
> always does when presented with facts.
>
> Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make

another desperate attempt at catching your breath.

ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your address.
Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.

It's understandable that an addict wouldn't take a scolding too well.
But if you can't see that all you did here was deny, run around
naked, and always say "it's not ME...it's THEM" when it came to
problem gamblers, then you're gonna need much more attention for your
disorder. Keep the comments coming so i can continue to show just how
deeply you're entrenched in the disease.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > By the way, Robbie sent me a nice book on his life. I'll

be

> > > posting some interesting facts later on.
> > > >
> > > > And you'll notice where I've outlined pertinent facts to

how

> > you've
> > > > destroyed your life as well as the missus'. Here's the

title

> (and
> > > it
> > > > truly doesn't get any better than this!): VIDEO POKER--THE
FACE
> > OF
> > > > PAIN, by R.G.MUSTAIN Such a fitting title that even
rhymes....
> > >
> > > I've been reading ("Video Poker - the Face of Pain", by

Shepard

> > king)
> > > sent to me by Rob. The book is by a victim of addiction. I
> thought
> > > I'd take a little time to analyze some of the aspects of this
> book
> > > and Rob's comments handwritten on various pages.
> > >
> > > 1) The addict in this book got caught up in trying to beat

the

> > > casinos by attempting to come up with a "system". He first
tried
> > his version of Martingale at blackjack. After quickly failing

at

> that
> > he tried video poker. His system was based on figuring out a
> pattern.
> > He would vary his bet based on what he thought was a pattern.

Of

> > course, he failed miserably which was one of the factors that

led

> to
> > his gambling problems. Does this sound a little like Bob and
> > optdouble? Absolutely. Isn't it interesting that Rob Singer,

who

> goes
> > on and on about addiction, is supporting the exact behavior

that

> can
> > lead to gambling problems.
> >
> > Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not only

are

> you lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made you
feel like poopoo.
>
> LMAO. The only thing that "hit home" was you little man. You say
one thing and do another. Shame on you for supporting the EXACT
behavior that leads to addiction. I thought it was refreshing that

MY

viewpoint would be a roadblock to addiction. Is Robbie really a

shill

for the casinos? You be the judge.

It's appearing more like you believe YOU'RE being judged by this
book....and you ARE.

Just the opposite. The book describes behavior 180 degrees opposite
of what I do except for time spent gambling. And, if you're going to
use time spent, then I can easily set the amount to define your play
as an addiction as well. Not to mention that we've already covered
this when I sent you to the various websites on gambling problems.

Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-gambling,
everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of seriously
inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.

And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what you did?
Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone else has the
poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really this stupid?

You fit EVERY
alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease, and

denial-

-which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug on top of
it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....

OK. Name a couple that you haven't made up in your own mind so you
can continue your con. I went over the 20 GA questions and only
answered yes partially to two of them. It's so obvious why you keep
pushing the addiction button. THE CON.

>
> > >
> > > 2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book

the

> > victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is random.

He

> had
> > no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short
coins
> > impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money
> management
> > and bankroll considerations.
> >
> > ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are

inflicted

> with the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos.
>
> Sorry to come in with the facts again.

Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!

You do remember that the amount of time spent in a casino is not
relevant as far as GA is concerned? Of course you do, I already
pointed that out long ago. And, instead of accepting this FACT, you
come right out and say "the degree to which they are inflicted with
the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos". This is an
outright LIE since you have been previously educated. Add another one
to the list.

However, the number of trips
> to the casino is not a reasonable measure of addiction. If your
> statement were true then everyday workers would all be addicted

to

> their jobs. Church goers would be addicted to church. Anyone who
> regularly exercises would be addicted to exercise. I could go on
and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.

There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed into denial
again as we speak.

Yes, we can see that in your answer. You ALREADY know the TRUTH and
yet you come back and lie. Don't you have the faintest clue that
these obvious lies make you look completely foolish?

Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is simply

an

addict's way of creating a net of false security around their sick
activity.

Once again you start off with an asserted lie, you must really love
being the villiage idiot.

>
> > No, the poor guy that mirrors your video poker life of

addiction

is not an AP, but for you to single out that unimportant fact is

just

another knife in your own chest.
>
> Did I mention babbling at the end of the last post? Robbie comes
> through again.

And that knife seems to have been twisting around in there for

quite

a while.....

Yawn. You even admit this guy is completely different than an APer.
Need I say more. LMAO.

>
> >
> > > 3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went
from
> > > machine to machine until I found one in a good count cycle."
> Rob's
> > > comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that is
> losing
> > > regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems

to

> > think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you notice?
> This
> > guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a

pattern

> it
> > > evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.
> >
> > Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count cycle'

to

> > this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or

cold

> > cycle---
>
> What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your

addiction

> promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.

"good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't call
that 'good' because I don't play for them.

"good" and "hot" are just two different words of the same idea. You
have your ideas and he had his. They are both meaningless and promote
addiction.

Your boy did here. It's
probably 'good' to you because it'll keep you at the addict

machines

longer.

LMAO. You're the one that believes in cycles, so basically you just
agreed that believing in cycles is addictive. QED.

> > but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
> > certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I

don't

> > remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about
machines is very different, because I don't stick around for
> the 'evaporation' phase.

> What part of "went from machine to machine" didn't you

understand?

> This guy kept moving just like you just said. Sorry to blow your
con again.

So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope.

You always say it doesn't
matter if you stay at one or play a thousand machines in a day.

Lie, I've never said that.

Now
you say it matters and makes him lose. Get your story straight

before

you try to make up analogies.

Not my story. You're the one claiming machines have cycles. You just
knocked yourself in this last response. How sweet it is ...

> > And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> > programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely do.
My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.
>
> LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who wins the
> lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in 1000
chance of success and we already know you've been lying with the
30>22 factoid.

In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking my

chances

of success have been 1 in a million.

Since you keep changing your story, that could easily be the case.
Sooner or later you'll have to admit that you lied (since 30>22).
When you admit the truth, I will once again need to change the
simulator.

A geek will do whatever's
necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's eating
away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real.

Eventually,

it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've never
existed either.

LMAO. It's really been "eating" at me to see your lies exposed for
everyone to see. Now, I use your own book to demonstrate what really
is involved in addiction, and, instead of supporting behaviors that
would limit addiction, you come out and oppose them. Your words are
getting so hollow here you best think about another break.

>
> > >
> > > 4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that

are

> > > potential victims. I've also seen 3%.
> >
> > I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall gamblers
on CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending

group-

video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over 50%.
>
> Of course you did. I'm sure if you define addiction to your

liking

> you can come up with any number you like. Try this one, Addict:
> Anyone who visits a casino more than once every 3 months. Now,

all

> APers would be addicts ... and, so would little Robbie. The 3-5%
> number is based on gamblers who've come forward with admitted
> gambling problems and projecting that to the entire gambling
> population.

You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of going

thru

all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the facts

that

hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And since
DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!

Facts make Robbie babble.

>
> >
> > However, the point to keep in
> > > mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they have
the
> > > personality traits required. As such, this is basically a

cross

> > > section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are

likely

> to
> > be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly all
> APers
> > > are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is somehow

a

> > > drawing force for people with the right personality traits.
This
> > > doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply hooked
on
> a
> > > few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a
system.
> > > APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> > > mathematically proven strategies.
> >
> > Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you. Another
> > collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep

with

> your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you

unless

you create the theory.
>
> Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the book
and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.

?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the nightmare
you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You keep

blaming

all woes on 'other people' -

Name a single woe I have blamed on anyone. Please provide references.
PS. I do blame AP for adding to my taxable income.

which is understandable because while
you're in the midst of your wretched dream, the burden is NEVER

your

own. Didn't you realize that when you blamed your addiction on your
wife, that you had this telling 'blame' problem to begin with?

LMAO. In one paragraph Robbie says I deny addiction, then later he
says I blame it on my wife. Which one is it little man? Pick one lie
and try to stick to it for a change. These constant descrepancies in
Rob's statement are vivid examples that he has no clues about me. He
simply keeps bringing this up so he doesn't have to answer questions
like ... 30>22.

>
> > >
> > > 5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I
wanted
> > to
> > > move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in LV
is
> > > similar to this individual who stated this after a big win.

Rob

> > just
> > > doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is because

he

> had
> > > the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many

big

> > wins
> > > and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I

never

> quit
> > > jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my

LV

> > > residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've been
> > playing
> > > VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't understand
> that
> > 19
> > > out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But then,
> that
> > > would blow his entire reason for existence. His con.
> >
> > Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment you
> > reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be closer

to

> the machines.
>
> LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his

asserted

> lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms for 6
> years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish every
> time to try to save face.

Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring.

Why not? The guy in the book moved without retiring. He left one job
and got another one in LV. That's what addiction REALLY does. It
leads people to react instead of act. You are losing ALL credibility
here. Is that what you intended?

For all
we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over whether
to move or not....and as usual, you got your way.

LMAO. Robbie turns a question into an asserted lie. You really must
enjoy looking foolish, why else would you do it so often.

Now you know why
she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a compromise
where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know that.

More lies ... we're still waiting for you explain 30>22.

The
addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long before
the final and full move is made.

Yeah, I'm thinking Carefree, AZ. I hear it's a good place for "loser"
watching.

>
> > Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> > after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos

every

> > day? HA!

> Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic attempts

to

> save face up your sleeve?

It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky.

Minimalizing

the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.

Once again, the facts leave Robbie with nothing but the babbles. You
just said I couldn't stay away for 6 months and I demonstrated you
were wrong. You sure are looking foolish today. Good job.

>
> > It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
> > like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling book
about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along

with

your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher piece of
meat on your plate.
>
> Did I mention babbling?

I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those who move

to

LV too.....if I were the infected fool.

So, EVERYONE who moves to LV is an addict ... LMAO. How does that
clown suit fit?

>
> > >
> > > 6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing
> constant
> > > was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of

all

> > other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does

this

> > relate to me?
> >
> > The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe you

have

> > other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the

thought

> of video poker that there really is nothing else in your life

that

> comes close to measuring up to that grab.
>
> This insert before my description of what I do shows how much
little Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the
description but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies

anyway.

Just makes you look foolish, little man. Thanks.

All your famous 'insert' tells is the interests you've let go of
because of your gambling problem.

More lies. You must love being the villiage idiot.

Going to the gym once in 3 months
would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the

machines

such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest".

Is that what you did? Interesting. I'm sure glad I'm much smarter
than you.

It's all a feel-
good joke and you know it. Stop fooling yourself.

RIV. Need I say more.

>
> >
> > I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies, etc).

I

> > > still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I
guess
> > Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen myself
and
> an
> > > addicted gambler.
> >
> > You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone you
don't
> > live to play video poker.
>
> No, I think everyone here can easily tell I don't. Only you,

little

> man, lie about it. Robbie, who needs to insult any and everyone

who

> follows proven mathematical AP, and does so in order to spread

his

> CON.

The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it yet. The
rest of us can, CON.

LMAO. This entire post of yours is almost constant babbling. You have
not refuted a single thing I posted. Instead you continue making
yourself look idiotic by supporting addictive behavior and stating
outright lies. I've got you right where I want you and I know you'll
come back with the same old drivel again. You have no other choice.
How sweet it is ...

>
> > You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> > hand says they have it all under control, then on the other

brags

> > about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,
>
> Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a simple
> response to your statements that I always lost.

'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under

control'

yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a HUGE
amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period of time.

Just the facts, as usual. We already covered the fact that "time" has
nothing to do with addiction. You already know this but have run out
of other lies as I proved them all wrong. How sweet it is ...

And just like Dancer's baloney claims, my '6 month run' should not

be

indicative of such compulsive play BEFORE or SINCE that 6-month
period, nosiree! I have it ALL under control now, yes I do, and i

had

it all under control before too! That 6 month period was simply the
period of fame that I chose to claim my prowess within!!"

Once again Rob's jealousy of Dancer rears it's ugly head. Face it,
little man, you will never be Bob Dancer. You're too stupid.

>
> > then denies everything I
> > say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,
>
> That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?

Why would anyone expect you to tell the truth about this? After all
your denials and lies on just about every other subject, you don't
think you've laid out your legacy?

I do believe I have accomplished exactly what I set out to
accomplish ... Proving Rob Singer is a LAF.

>
> > and then says "I
> > only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live

body

to believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful
minimalization of a problem
>
> Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only gamble 3
> hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to gamble

6

> hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different then your
> working on old cars.

There's that analogy of degenerate sickness to productive

activities

again!

I thought you'd like that one. Too bad for your con that it's another
simple truth.

When cornered with sense, come out denying and
scrambling....with that ol' needy confidence-building spirit!

The babbles go on and on ...

>
> > ---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
> > into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning prowess
there in some type of genuflection move
>
> If "running right back" is waiting a week then your definition

may

be a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my responses
were to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if the

facts

and your lies don't mesh.

OK, which of you was sick for a week and held the addict party

back?

good thing though. It kept your losses down.

And on and on ... Let's see I'm over 3 weeks since my last casino
visit ... what about you?

>
> > ---you RADIATE problems to the rest of us.
>
> Assert lie.

Prove you don't.

Talk about an impotent reply. Did I mention that you are starting to
make all the other villiage idiots look smart?

>
> > And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who has
> > ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just like

you

> > claim to be!
>
> I only deal in facts. If you can't handle that then just say so.

I think we've seen just what kind of 'facts' you bring to the
table.....That's kinda what most of the LV cocktail waitresses call
those two bumps on their chests too!

ROTFLMAO. Is this the best the villiage idiot can offer? Does anyone
have a stronger word than "impotent"?

>
> >
> > > Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems

that

> > > gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even a
few
> > > APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted
APers
> > > will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of

AP.

> >
> > > Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what

he

> > always does when presented with facts.
> >
> > Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make
another desperate attempt at catching your breath.

Yes FACTS. You know, like casino time NOT being a cause of addiction
whereas chasing non-existent "cycles" is. Yes FACTS.

>
> ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your address.
> Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.

It's understandable that an addict wouldn't take a scolding too

well.

But if you can't see that all you did here was deny, run around
naked, and always say "it's not ME...it's THEM" when it came to
problem gamblers, then you're gonna need much more attention for

your

disorder. Keep the comments coming so i can continue to show just

how

deeply you're entrenched in the disease.

This is soooooo funny. Rob obviously didn't think that a book on an
addict's life would make him look this bad. Get over it.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from

less

> than
> > > an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your
inferiority
> > > complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +.

Seems

> > your
> > > facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
> > >
> > > My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.
> >
> > Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following what
I'm
> > saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts right
you
> > have to know what to look at. You never have.
>
> You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no

discipline.

Let's see.....Go into the casino everyday and pound away at the
machines making believe I have a 1% advantage, or set whatever goal
I'd like, attain it, and go home when I hit it?? That's a real

tough

choice, and I wonder which one requires more discipline.....

Certainly NOT changing goals every other trip, or changing between
5/6 levels. Especially from someone who claims discipline is the
reason for their success.

>
> > >
> > > > > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob

never

> > > responded to this question so let me ask him again. How can
you
> > have
> > > only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31
> session
> > > losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob just
> > didn't
> > > think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
> > > EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about

his

> > > gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he says

as

> the
> > > truth.
> > > > > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to

one-

> up
> > me
> > > you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's

already

> > > completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment
> before,
> > > but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8 losses
(or
> > > close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10. Read
> Rule
> > #6
> > > again from my strategy page. It'll
> > > > > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ... come

up

> > with
> > > a new lie.
> > > > That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the

rule--

> as
> > > I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a
geek
> > must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own failure

to

> > review the facts! Oh what joy!!
> > >
> > > I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be,

is

> far
> > > more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?
> >
> > your version was to guess however necessary to create a

scenario

> > where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But you
> ended
> > up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.
>
> LMAO. Scrambling does not hide your lies.

Simple truth little dicky.....simple truth. I enjoy watching you
squirm with envy over my unparrelled success, and as you make up
scenarios about my strategies to help ease your pain, I watch as it
actually increases it. Talk about thrills!

Could it be little Robbie finally understands the impossibility of
his claims? How sweet it is ...

>
> > >
> > > > > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one. As
> > everyone
> > > else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a
> > progression
> > > is equivalent to any session played without a progression.

So,

> > let's
> > > take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31 at
$25
> > and
> > > 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims to
have
> > > had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is

now

a
> > 259
> > > total tries.
> > > > With all your running around it appears you're so lost in a
> > myriad
> > > of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has

trouble

> > > following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times.
Sorry
> > (not
> > > really!) you feel so bad again!
> > >
> > > I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you

stated

> 10%
> > > of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.
> >
> > Never said that. You did. I can't even count your
> misrepresentations
> > and lies.
>
> Chalk up another lie ...
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843

I knew it! You're lying yet again! I was curious as to how that

could

have been true, and once again here's proof that you made it up. As

I

was babysitting you thru my play strategy's groundrules so you

could

run your now-stupid sims with as much educated probability as
possible, I ASKED A QUESTION, and get ready--here it is, directly
from post #2843!: "Also, is it possible to run 10% of the sessions

at

6 levels?"

You also asked several other questions. Like whether I could simulate
your special plays. Are you now saying you really don't use special
plays?

And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually played 3
times! What a dufus!!

That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6 levels. Now,
he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.

And you were told the basis of my input was
what was assumed would be the case at the strategy's inception and
wasn't reality. So after you finish crying over another letdown,

let

me hear your excuse for running head-first into that same wall this
time! And I though geeks worked only with correct figures.....

ROTFLMAO.

> > > > > a) Previously Rob indicated is reached the $100 level

about

> 10%
> > > of the time. Now it appears he's changed that to 3%. Chalk

up

> > > another lie.
> > > > Hmmm.... think you know the difference between $100 & $25?

I

> know
> > > at the weeny level you play at (unless you hit a royal of
course--
> > > where you immediately do the pathological thing and go UP in
> > > denomination) these are big numbers, but for a geek, i'm
> surprised.
> > >
> > > Let's see ... nothing here but babbling. On to next lie.
> > >
> > > > > b) The chances of winning 30/39 sessions is nearly
> impossible.
> > A
> > > positive game like 10-6 DDB gives around a 30-40% chance of
> winning
> > > any one of these sessions. Rob claims over 75% wins. This is
> > > hilarious.
> > > > 'Impossible' is the geek term for afraid to know--which you
> > either
> > > are...or are too stupid for words. 2-1 at $100, approx. 22-8

at

> > $25,
> > > and approx. 204-22 at $10 and below.
> > >
> > > Rob's brain isn't working too well here. He proudly claims an
> > > impossible win rate at an individual level AND, more
importantly,
> > he also claims a TOTAL of 31 losses when you must have lost

each

> time
> > at the lower level to get to a higher level.
> >
> > I understand you want it to be your way, but this isn't Burger
King
> > (althoug I AM King). So now you write my play rules and want

each

> > level loss to be counted as a session loss? No wonder you have
> > question marks in your nightmares.....
>
> LMAO. To lose a session at $25 you had to lose at $10. It's as

easy

> as that. The numbers don't lie.

And to lose for the 12th time at hand #16 means you wouldn've had

to

lose 11 times before it. You gonna count those as 11 session losses
just as you would count each denominational loss within the

strategy

until the goal is hit, a loss? How stupid. Are you THAT desperate

to

come up with a variation of strategy to fit in that geek head?

More scrambling. Everyone can see the obvious. 30>22.

> > Robbie can't lie well
> > > enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob

just

> said
> > > he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's also
> > claimed
> > > only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25
level
> 30
> > > times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's

lying.)

> >
> > More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY level

is

a loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a win??

> It can.

Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you don't
continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are claiming
my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants the

Dunce

Cap on your head even more permanently.

Yes, I certainly am claiming your "strategy isn't what it is". Thanks
for proving it to everyone.

> > Do
> > you EVER read what you write and/or review it for accuracy so

you

> > don't continue to look this stupid? But more to your point. If
you care to read my site again,

> Still haven't been there. All I go by is the lies you post here.

Another lie. A BIG one.

Once again Robbie can't be consistent. On one hand he chides me to go
to his site and on the other he says I go there all the time. Make up
your mind.

> > you'll see my record is a combination of
> > ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more
> recently since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other strategies.
It's a miracle that you can put your shoes on each day without my
directing you how to.

> Seems like a lot of words and yet no evidence to refute my
> statements. The con has been exposed.

Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission of not
having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute after
proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both shoes on
each day without help!

Now he's back to claiming I haven't been to his site. You can't stick
with a position for one minute.

> > >
> > > > > c) Now let's look at level four. Rob is claiming a total

of

> 31
> > > losses out of around 150 tries. Yup, he's claiming another

80%

> win
> > > rate equivalent to a single session player expectation of 30-
40%.
> > Not
> > > to mention that the 30-40% number is ANY win, Rob needs to
cover
> > the
> > > losses of all his previous levels also. This is even more
> hilarious.
> >
> > The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy over
my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You also
need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my

strategies.

>
> Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies. It's a
> little late to start whining.

It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every time you
attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't happen to a
better gut either!

30>22.

> > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-
> > information about how I play and what I've accomplished, you
might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > >
> > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> >
> > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
>
> I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's in

denial.

The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater. You're
argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your eyes,

and

you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?

30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's lies.

···

-----------------------------------

Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> Now, I wonder why he thinks some extra money would come into

play?

> Does anyone else get the feeling he has some experience here?

No response? I wonder why?

> > > > Anyone can regularly dump other funds into their account

for

> > > whatever reason they choose to. For future purposes so you
don't embarrass yourself again, when you say you can 'prove' you

have

won, make sure you actually can do that without scrambling around

at

the 11th hour making up excuses and trying to save face by having
others 'trust' you.
> > > > Here's what I will always require for absolute proof:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Trackable bank withdrawals to play with, or other
verifiable
> > > methods of where and how you obtained the cash. The IRS doe

not

> > accept "I had the cash in the house" and I don't either.
> >
> > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> >
> > OK. You can prove that the money you're playing with TODAY came
out
> > of X withdrawal, and what you claimed to have won TODAY is in Y
> > deposit.
>
> That's not the way I do it. Over the last winter you will see ONE
> withdrawl when I got to LV. You will see several deposits along

the

> way. Since I deal in smaller denoms I have no reason to run to

the

> bank every day.

I understand that. That's exactly the resson for accurate/truthful
and detailed casino records.

I have more details then you would ever want.

> > > > 2. Contemporaneous gambling records of each casino visit.

If

> you have been audited for the period and the IRS accepts this
record as complete and accurate, we're in business. If not, you

must

come up with another method to prove the money said won gambling

was

in fact won playing video poker.
> >
> > > These are pretty much worthless since they can be built to

say

> > > anything you want them to say. That said, I have 'em.
> >
> > As a vp player who files as a professional gambler, I am

inclined

> to look the other way when someone says something like that. You
> > probably haven't yet been audited (I can do something about

that

> too) but if you say they are worthless because you lie about them
or manipulate them, then I have to believe you and you'll have to
come up with another method of proving that you won the deposited
money playing vp.

> They are worthless because they are simply a written record where
> anyone could lie. You should also note that you and IRS are

looking

> for the exact opposite claims. You think I claim to many wins

while

> the IRS is looking for unreported wins.

Normal, truthful and respectable people DON'T lie on their income.

And, that has nothing to do with what I stated. I simply stated
anyone "could" lie. You know, a FACT.

You win $45 today then you have to report it. If you're trying to
sell me that you won the money playing video poker then it would

also

have to be reported as income to the IRS.

Already done.

If you don't, then I'd have
no official choice but to take it as you did not win as you claimed
to have done.

Like I said, already done and offered to you as proof of my winnings.

> > > > 3. Re-deposits exactly correlating to the time & amount
claimed won or lost.
> > >
> > > Time is meaningless. The only thing that matters is for all

the

> > cash deposits to match said winnings.
> >
> > THAT's what's meaningless. Where'd you really get the money?

your

> > portfolio isn't absolute in that respect and given that you

have

no qualms about lying to the IRS about your play, you'd certainly

lie

> to me about it.
>
> Actually, my portfolio is almost absolute. However, I can see

this

> point. I brought up the possibility of unreported income in the
past with your claims so it is certainly an issue.

The 'possibility' is always there---but not with me.

Of course not ... Rob would never lie ... wink, wink ... 30>22.

You don't file
as a professional gambler and expect to 'get away' with unreported
income. I learned on my first gambling audit in 1999 that if you

only

report the W2G wins and expect them to believe you never won less
than $1200 in any visit, they'll get you.

Not likely for .25/.50 denoms. I can see the point for larger denoms.

they'll also get you for
not showing a withdrawal within a reasonable amount of time of your
casino visits--

Again, I think the denom makes all the difference here. Not to
mention my exact records of every casinos visit.

so your system of a single withdrawal is gonna bite
you down the road. They'll just add in a projected 'win' amount and
add it to your income based on your average track record, and you'd
have no way to dispute it without back-up documentation.

Not a problem.

That's why
misscrap is worried. She's never told the right ways to do things
because she gets her info from the Queen, who is always looking for
more gambling cash.

Lie. Having records of every casino visit is exactly what Jean
promotes.

> > > > 4. Bank statements showing any and all deposits made
throughout the period in question, and a description of each.
> > >
> > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> >
> > Including descriptions? No. You have to prove what they're for.
>
> The bank deposits only indicates CASH.

Then how can that identify every deposit?

All bank transactions are dated. I though everyone knew that.

> > > > 5. Year-ending 1040 review. W2G's are meaningless because

we

> all win a lot more than W2G's show.
> > >
> > > All there. So, you got that $10K?
> >
> > You really looked a lot better on this before you started
> scrambling around trying to make up things to support your false
reporting here.
>
> Is that false wins or losses? You have stated both ...

It's turned into false 'everything' until you factualize SOMETHING.

I guess Robbie doesn't like the facts ...

>
> > Just as in almost everything else you get involved in here, the
> more you release information the worse you look. (REASON #1 as to
why the geeks are shut down and removed by the Program Manager when
the real discussions begin). At first you had 60% credibility. Now
it's 40%. I require 100%. Keep trying.
>
> I think this has gone far enough. I did all this so everyone

could

> see exactly WHY it is impossible for Robbie to ever PROVE his
claimed results. The issue of outside cash will always exist and
there is NO way to prove that anyone's claims are valid. For

example,

Robbie could restore old cars and sell them for cash. Use that

money

to supplement his claims and no one would be the wiser. It was very
satisfying to see Robbie spell out exactly why his own claims are
worthless.

100% false. As a professional gambler I keep a GAMBLING ONLY

account

that has all transactions only for my gambling trips, posted and
dated, and my casino and IRS records all correlate EXACTLY to my

bank

account statement for gaming.

So, you're saying it would not be possible to take cash gained from
selling old cars or whatever and supplement your wins? You know,
basic money laundering 101. LMAO.

There's nothing else in there except
some withdrawals of the profits and interest for buying things when
there's no trips involved. I've even had the 5-year audit to verify
everything -- all of which is why I put up a huge amount against

the

fool radio jock. Our normal joint account is used only for bills

and

expenses, never is cash taken out, and the deposits are all from my
wife's work--except when we bought the house recently when I made
deposits from my brokerage account. Everything's very precise,

clear,

and traceable. And anyone would lose to me if they bet me on my
proof. And when I offerred to pay for the Nevada Arbitrator who's
decision would be final and binding, that's like a final nail in

the

coffin of any fool that would bet me. That's why the jock backed

off

and that's why you did.

ROTFLMAO. I guess my records aren't believeable because I might
supplement them from other sources, but Rob's records are believeable
because ... what?, He said so? ... Don't you remember, little man ...
30>22.

> > > Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not only
are
> > you lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made

you

> feel like poopoo.
> >
> > LMAO. The only thing that "hit home" was you little man. You

say

> one thing and do another. Shame on you for supporting the EXACT
> behavior that leads to addiction. I thought it was refreshing

that

MY
> viewpoint would be a roadblock to addiction. Is Robbie really a
shill
> for the casinos? You be the judge.
>
> It's appearing more like you believe YOU'RE being judged by this
> book....and you ARE.

Just the opposite. The book describes behavior 180 degrees opposite
of what I do except for time spent gambling.

Denial: The Number 1 trait of problem gamblers.

And, if you're going to

use time spent, then I can easily set the amount to define your

play

as an addiction as well. Not to mention that we've already covered
this when I sent you to the various websites on gambling problems.

Gambling guilt: Trying to write-off your own problem by comparing it
favorably to what others reasonably do.

> Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-gambling,
> everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of seriously
> inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.

And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what you did?
Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone else has

the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really this
stupid?

How about listening to experience for a change instead of coming
apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know i'm right?

> You fit EVERY
> alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease, and
denial-
> -which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug on top

of it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....

OK. Name a couple that you haven't made up in your own mind so you
can continue your con. I went over the 20 GA questions and only
answered yes partially to two of them. It's so obvious why you keep
pushing the addiction button. THE CON.

DENIAL! Your #1 nemisis.
Moving to be closer to the machines.
Daily play that interrupts what COULD be a normal life.
Inability to live a single day without either playing vp, talking
about it, having anxiety over it, or all three.

Should I continue?

> >
> > > >
> > > > 2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this book
the
> > > victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is

random.

He
> > had
> > > no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing short
> coins
> > > impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money
> > management
> > > and bankroll considerations.
> > >
> > > ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are
inflicted
> > with the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos.
> >
> > Sorry to come in with the facts again.
>
> Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!

You do remember that the amount of time spent in a casino is not
relevant as far as GA is concerned? Of course you do, I already
pointed that out long ago.

Your 'spin' on that would include the blind. Irrelevant. The more
time one who GAMBLES is in a casino determines their degree of
degeneracy.

And, instead of accepting this FACT, you

come right out and say "the degree to which they are inflicted with
the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos". This is an
outright LIE since you have been previously educated. Add another

one to the list.

Being 'educated' by an addict who is in extreme denial is both
illogical and of no added value. Think about it..

>
> However, the number of trips
> > to the casino is not a reasonable measure of addiction. If your
> > statement were true then everyday workers would all be addicted
to
> > their jobs. Church goers would be addicted to church. Anyone

who

> > regularly exercises would be addicted to exercise. I could go

on

> and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.
>
> There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed into

denial

> again as we speak.

Yes, we can see that in your answer. You ALREADY know the TRUTH and
yet you come back and lie. Don't you have the faintest clue that
these obvious lies make you look completely foolish?

Every time you claim I'm 'lying' it's tainted by the ugly black cloud
of denial and guilt. And deceit.

> Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
> black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is

simply

an
> addict's way of creating a net of false security around their

sick

> activity.

Once again you start off with an asserted lie, you must really love
being the villiage idiot.

Undeniable fact: Anyone held in the grips of addiction will call any
person who reveals the addict's problem, a liar.

> >
> > > No, the poor guy that mirrors your video poker life of
addiction
> is not an AP, but for you to single out that unimportant fact is
just
> another knife in your own chest.
> >
> > Did I mention babbling at the end of the last post? Robbie

comes

> > through again.
>
> And that knife seems to have been twisting around in there for
quite
> a while.....

Yawn. You even admit this guy is completely different than an APer.
Need I say more. LMAO.

Addicts are addicts, whether they play stupidly or think they play
intelligently. You are no different than the author.
  

> > > > 3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I went
> from
> > > > machine to machine until I found one in a good count

cycle."

> > Rob's
> > > > comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that

is

> > losing
> > > > regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob seems
to
> > > think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you

notice?

> > This
> > > guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a
pattern
> > it
> > > > evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.
> > >
> > > Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count

cycle'

to
> > > this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or
cold
> > > cycle---
> >
> > What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your
addiction
> > promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.
>
> "good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't call
> that 'good' because I don't play for them.

"good" and "hot" are just two different words of the same idea. You
have your ideas and he had his. They are both meaningless and

promote addiction.

Then you didn't get what the author was saying. I suspect that's part
of your program of denial.

> Your boy did here. It's
> probably 'good' to you because it'll keep you at the addict
machines
> longer.

LMAO. You're the one that believes in cycles, so basically you just
agreed that believing in cycles is addictive. QED.

Fact: anyone who knows and accepts that machines are programmed to
run in cycles plays less time and leaves much sooner. That kind of
blows your newest theory out of the water.

>
> > > but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
> > > certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I
don't
> > > remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about
> machines is very different, because I don't stick around for
> > the 'evaporation' phase.
>
> > What part of "went from machine to machine" didn't you
understand?
> > This guy kept moving just like you just said. Sorry to blow

your

> con again.
>
> So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope.

Certainly you are if you understand why you said what you said.

> You always say it doesn't
> matter if you stay at one or play a thousand machines in a day.

Lie, I've never said that.

Sure you did if you clear the webs of truth about you that this book
has caused.

> Now
> you say it matters and makes him lose. Get your story straight
before
> you try to make up analogies.

Not my story. You're the one claiming machines have cycles. You

just

knocked yourself in this last response. How sweet it is ...

When you stumble like this you really stumble. If you call the effort
you make to escape the point, then it must be sweet to you.

>
> > > And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> > > programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely

do.

> My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.
> >
> > LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who wins

the

> > lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in 1000
> chance of success and we already know you've been lying with the
> 30>22 factoid.
>
> In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking my
chances
> of success have been 1 in a million.

Since you keep changing your story, that could easily be the case.
Sooner or later you'll have to admit that you lied (since 30>22).
When you admit the truth, I will once again need to change the
simulator.

If you would have read my strategiy with comprehension instead of
making things up about it as you go along just so the sim results
wouldn't look so great to you, you wouldn't continue to look so weak
when you say I lied or that nonsense about 30-22. Hiding behind time
and error while generalizing about their spin in the future is
exactly what denyers and liars always do.

> A geek will do whatever's
> necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's

eating

> away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real.
Eventually,
> it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've never
> existed either.

LMAO. It's really been "eating" at me to see your lies exposed for
everyone to see.

Denial: the #1 trait of problem gamblers.

Now, I use your own book to demonstrate what really

is involved in addiction, and, instead of supporting behaviors that
would limit addiction, you come out and oppose them. Your words are
getting so hollow here you best think about another break.

"It's the other guys, not me" said little dicky!

> >
> > > >
> > > > 4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers that
are
> > > > potential victims. I've also seen 3%.
> > >
> > > I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall

gamblers

> on CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending
group-
> video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over 50%.
> >
> > Of course you did. I'm sure if you define addiction to your
liking
> > you can come up with any number you like. Try this one, Addict:
> > Anyone who visits a casino more than once every 3 months. Now,
all
> > APers would be addicts ... and, so would little Robbie. The 3-

5%

> > number is based on gamblers who've come forward with admitted
> > gambling problems and projecting that to the entire gambling
> > population.
>
> You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of going
thru
> all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the facts
that
> hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And since
> DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!

Facts make Robbie babble.

CNBC had the facts. You've got denial. Any questions?

> >
> > >
> > > However, the point to keep in
> > > > mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they

have

> the
> > > > personality traits required. As such, this is basically a
cross
> > > > section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are
likely
> > to
> > > be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly

all

> > APers
> > > > are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is

somehow

a
> > > > drawing force for people with the right personality traits.
> This
> > > > doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply

hooked

> on
> > a
> > > > few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a
> system.
> > > > APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> > > > mathematically proven strategies.
> > >
> > > Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you.

Another

> > > collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep
with
> > your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you
unless
> you create the theory.
> >
> > Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the

book

> and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.
>
> ?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the

nightmare

> you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You keep
blaming
> all woes on 'other people' -

Name a single woe I have blamed on anyone. Please provide

references. PS. I do blame AP for adding to my taxable income.

#1 thru #1,000,000: Blamed the wife for your gambling problem.

> which is understandable because while
> you're in the midst of your wretched dream, the burden is NEVER
your
> own. Didn't you realize that when you blamed your addiction on

your

> wife, that you had this telling 'blame' problem to begin with?

LMAO. In one paragraph Robbie says I deny addiction, then later he
says I blame it on my wife. Which one is it little man? Pick one

lie

and try to stick to it for a change. These constant descrepancies

in

Rob's statement are vivid examples that he has no clues about me.

He

simply keeps bringing this up so he doesn't have to answer

questions

like ... 30>22.

Just like all problem gamblers, you chase away the truth and view it
as an attack in any form. When you claim gambling is a hobby, you
deny addiction....the same addiction you blame your wife for causing
it. You see, the truth is simple, regardless of the weasel-word spin
you put on the words.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on I
> wanted
> > > to
> > > > move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence in

LV

> is
> > > > similar to this individual who stated this after a big win.
Rob
> > > just
> > > > doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is

because

he
> > had
> > > > the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had many
big
> > > wins
> > > > and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I
never
> > quit
> > > > jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy my
LV
> > > > residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've

been

> > > playing
> > > > VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't

understand

> > that
> > > 19
> > > > out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But

then,

> > that
> > > > would blow his entire reason for existence. His con.
> > >
> > > Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment

you

> > > reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be

closer

to
> > the machines.
> >
> > LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his
asserted
> > lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms for

6

> > years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish

every

> > time to try to save face.
>
> Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring.

Why not? The guy in the book moved without retiring. He left one

job

and got another one in LV.

In your usual effort to use meaningless analogies to cover for your
excuses and problem, you predictably became lost here
again. "Immediately after retiring" has nothing to do with the author
and everything to do with you.

That's what addiction REALLY does. It

leads people to react instead of act. You are losing ALL

credibility

here. Is that what you intended?

> For all
> we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over

whether

> to move or not....and as usual, you got your way.

LMAO. Robbie turns a question into an asserted lie. You really must
enjoy looking foolish, why else would you do it so often.

You have the traits of ugliness in everything you do, little dicky. I
simply bring them to surface.

> Now you know why
> she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a compromise
> where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know that.

More lies ... we're still waiting for you explain 30>22.

Every time you mention the 30-22 thing---which I've lost tract of
what it means anyway---it shows how uncomfortable you are with the
baloney your writing. It's like some sort of crutch, and it basically
confirms I'm spot-on right about you.

> The
> addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long

before

> the final and full move is made.

Yeah, I'm thinking Carefree, AZ. I hear it's a good place

for "loser"

watching.

Oops! Being a little testy and jealous in the same sentence are we??

> >
> > > Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> > > after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos
every
> > > day? HA!
>
> > Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic attempts
to
> > save face up your sleeve?
>
> It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky.
Minimalizing
> the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.

Once again, the facts leave Robbie with nothing but the babbles.

You

just said I couldn't stay away for 6 months and I demonstrated you
were wrong. You sure are looking foolish today. Good job.

After I demonstrated how you deny and lie at every turn, the hole
you're digging just keeps getting deeper.

> >
> > > It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
> > > like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling book
> about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along
with
> your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher piece

of

> meat on your plate.
> >
> > Did I mention babbling?
>
> I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those who

move

to
> LV too.....if I were the infected fool.

So, EVERYONE who moves to LV is an addict ... LMAO. How does that
clown suit fit?

What irks you is that we're just talking about YOU & the Queen right
now. Diluting the issue only makes you look all the more guilty of
degenerate behavior.

> >
> > > >
> > > > 6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only thing
> > constant
> > > > was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment of
all
> > > other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How does
this
> > > relate to me?
> > >
> > > The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe you
have
> > > other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the
thought
> > of video poker that there really is nothing else in your life
that
> > comes close to measuring up to that grab.
> >
> > This insert before my description of what I do shows how much
> little Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the
> description but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies
anyway.
> Just makes you look foolish, little man. Thanks.
>
> All your famous 'insert' tells is the interests you've let go of
> because of your gambling problem.

More lies. You must love being the villiage idiot.

then read on.....you'll be enlightened and surprised at how easy you
are to dissect.

> Going to the gym once in 3 months
> would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the
machines
> such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest".

Is that what you did? Interesting. I'm sure glad I'm much smarter
than you.

Need I say any more? You do so well at digging your own grave.

> It's all a feel-
> good joke and you know it. Stop fooling yourself.

> > > I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies,

etc).

I
> > > > still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money. I
> guess
> > > Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen

myself

> and
> > an
> > > > addicted gambler.
> > >
> > > You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone you
> don't
> > > live to play video poker.
> >
> > No, I think everyone here can easily tell I don't. Only you,
little
> > man, lie about it. Robbie, who needs to insult any and everyone
who
> > follows proven mathematical AP, and does so in order to spread
his
> > CON.
>
> The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it yet.

The

> rest of us can, CON.

LMAO. This entire post of yours is almost constant babbling. You

have

not refuted a single thing I posted. Instead you continue making
yourself look idiotic by supporting addictive behavior and stating
outright lies. I've got you right where I want you and I know

you'll

come back with the same old drivel again. You have no other choice.
How sweet it is ...

95% of what you're being accused of here by reason of degeneracy over
gambling is DENIED. Is that a surprise?? HAHA! You won't say it here,
but i know you are second-guessing your move to LV. Not only doies it
contribute to your gambling problem, the city is a cesspool and
getting worse.

> >
> > > You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> > > hand says they have it all under control, then on the other
brags
> > > about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,
> >
> > Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a simple
> > response to your statements that I always lost.
>
> 'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under
control'
> yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a HUGE
> amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period of time.

Just the facts, as usual. We already covered the fact that "time"

has

nothing to do with addiction.

Yup, in your own mind it doesn't. What an idiot....and that's kind.

You already know this but have run out

of other lies as I proved them all wrong. How sweet it is ...

> And just like Dancer's baloney claims, my '6 month run' should

not

be
> indicative of such compulsive play BEFORE or SINCE that 6-month
> period, nosiree! I have it ALL under control now, yes I do, and i
had
> it all under control before too! That 6 month period was simply

the

> period of fame that I chose to claim my prowess within!!"

Once again Rob's jealousy of Dancer rears it's ugly head. Face it,
little man, you will never be Bob Dancer. You're too stupid.

Yup again! Avoid the real issue. But what choice do you have other
than to ignore the truth about what i said? Even if you discussed it
or refuted it with the usual denial, it would weaken your position
and, in fact, weaken your spirit of the ongoing lying you seem to
survive with.

> >
> > > then denies everything I
> > > say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,
> >
> > That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?
>
> Why would anyone expect you to tell the truth about this? After

all

> your denials and lies on just about every other subject, you

don't

> think you've laid out your legacy?

I do believe I have accomplished exactly what I set out to
accomplish ... Proving Rob Singer is a LAF.

Yup--avoid the issue again. I wonder why.....

> >
> > > and then says "I
> > > only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live
body
> to believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful
> minimalization of a problem
> >
> > Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only gamble

3

> > hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to

gamble

6
> > hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different then

your

> > working on old cars.
>
> There's that analogy of degenerate sickness to productive
activities
> again!

I thought you'd like that one. Too bad for your con that it's

another

simple truth.

> When cornered with sense, come out denying and
> scrambling....with that ol' needy confidence-building spirit!

The babbles go on and on ...

> >
> > > ---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
> > > into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning prowess
> there in some type of genuflection move
> >
> > If "running right back" is waiting a week then your definition
may
> be a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my

responses

> were to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if the
facts
> and your lies don't mesh.
>
> OK, which of you was sick for a week and held the addict party
back?
> good thing though. It kept your losses down.

And on and on ... Let's see I'm over 3 weeks since my last casino
visit ... what about you?

> >
> > > ---you RADIATE problems to the rest of us.
> >
> > Assert lie.
>
> Prove you don't.

Talk about an impotent reply. Did I mention that you are starting

to

make all the other villiage idiots look smart?

And, um....the proof is WHERE??

> >
> > > And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who

has

> > > ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just like
you
> > > claim to be!
> >
> > I only deal in facts. If you can't handle that then just say so.
>
> I think we've seen just what kind of 'facts' you bring to the
> table.....That's kinda what most of the LV cocktail waitresses

call

> those two bumps on their chests too!

ROTFLMAO. Is this the best the villiage idiot can offer? Does

anyone

have a stronger word than "impotent"?

> >
> > >
> > > > Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of problems
that
> > > > gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims. Even

a

> few
> > > > APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few addicted
> APers
> > > > will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature of
AP.
> > >
> > > > Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's what
he
> > > always does when presented with facts.
> > >
> > > Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make
> another desperate attempt at catching your breath.

Yes FACTS. You know, like casino time NOT being a cause of

addiction

whereas chasing non-existent "cycles" is. Yes FACTS.

Here's some more education: Chasing cycles is dumb if you intend to
try it. Detecting your machine's cycle is intelligence personified. I
have it, you don't. You never will. And your envious that I have that
over you too. Next.

> >
> > ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your

address.

> > Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.
>
> It's understandable that an addict wouldn't take a scolding too
well.
> But if you can't see that all you did here was deny, run around
> naked, and always say "it's not ME...it's THEM" when it came to
> problem gamblers, then you're gonna need much more attention for
your
> disorder. Keep the comments coming so i can continue to show just
how
> deeply you're entrenched in the disease.

This is soooooo funny. Rob obviously didn't think that a book on an
addict's life would make him look this bad. Get over it.

Deny, avoid, and hand-off. Desperation at its height.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from
less
> > than
> > > > an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your
> inferiority
> > > > complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +.
Seems
> > > your
> > > > facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
> > > >
> > > > My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not mine.
> > >
> > > Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following

what

> I'm
> > > saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts

right

> you
> > > have to know what to look at. You never have.
> >
> > You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no
discipline.
>
> Let's see.....Go into the casino everyday and pound away at the
> machines making believe I have a 1% advantage, or set whatever

goal

> I'd like, attain it, and go home when I hit it?? That's a real
tough
> choice, and I wonder which one requires more discipline.....

Certainly NOT changing goals every other trip, or changing between
5/6 levels. Especially from someone who claims discipline is the
reason for their success.

I see your problem--you've blocked out the structure of my play
strategies and instead inserted something weird that you made up! You
really can't comprehend it can you! Every trip/every session is
different, and every trip has a different goal. You'd never get that
because addicts only goals are to play. As much as possible. With no
rhyme or reason.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob
never
> > > > responded to this question so let me ask him again. How

can

> you
> > > have
> > > > only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of 31
> > session
> > > > losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob

just

> > > didn't
> > > > think through this lie. Of course, this calls into question
> > > > EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie about
his
> > > > gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he

says

as
> > the
> > > > truth.
> > > > > > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest to
one-
> > up
> > > me
> > > > you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's
already
> > > > completely covered with egg. I saved you the embarrassment
> > before,
> > > > but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8

losses

> (or
> > > > close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10.

Read

> > Rule
> > > #6
> > > > again from my strategy page. It'll
> > > > > > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ...

come

up
> > > with
> > > > a new lie.
> > > > > That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the
rule--
> > as
> > > > I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain a
> geek
> > > must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own

failure

to
> > > review the facts! Oh what joy!!
> > > >
> > > > I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to be,
is
> > far
> > > > more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?
> > >
> > > your version was to guess however necessary to create a
scenario
> > > where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But

you

> > ended
> > > up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.
> >
> > LMAO. Scrambling does not hide your lies.
>
> Simple truth little dicky.....simple truth. I enjoy watching you
> squirm with envy over my unparrelled success, and as you make up
> scenarios about my strategies to help ease your pain, I watch as

it

> actually increases it. Talk about thrills!

Could it be little Robbie finally understands the impossibility of
his claims? How sweet it is ...

Success equates to actual and not 'possible'. That's what gets you
about all this. You don't understand it and can't make up anything
that disputes it, so you baffle yourself and make believe others will
be baffled by your rambling and scrambling. Keep it up. I like the
entertainment!

> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one.

As

> > > everyone
> > > > else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a
> > > progression
> > > > is equivalent to any session played without a progression.
So,
> > > let's
> > > > take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31

at

> $25
> > > and
> > > > 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims

to

> have
> > > > had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob is
now
> a
> > > 259
> > > > total tries.
> > > > > With all your running around it appears you're so lost in

a

> > > myriad
> > > > of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has
trouble
> > > > following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3 times.
> Sorry
> > > (not
> > > > really!) you feel so bad again!
> > > >
> > > > I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you
stated
> > 10%
> > > > of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.
> > >
> > > Never said that. You did. I can't even count your
> > misrepresentations
> > > and lies.
> >
> > Chalk up another lie ...
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843
>
> I knew it! You're lying yet again! I was curious as to how that
could
> have been true, and once again here's proof that you made it up.

As

I
> was babysitting you thru my play strategy's groundrules so you
could
> run your now-stupid sims with as much educated probability as
> possible, I ASKED A QUESTION, and get ready--here it is, directly
> from post #2843!: "Also, is it possible to run 10% of the

sessions

at
> 6 levels?"

You also asked several other questions. Like whether I could

simulate your special plays. Are you now saying you really don't use
special plays?

So now you're assuming everything--the number one culprit of geeks
and their theories. Both questions are what-ifs if you really
understand trial & error. I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my own
curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see questions
confuse you so.

> And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
> in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually played

3

> times! What a dufus!!

That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6 levels.

Now,

he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.

Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level progression! That
implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as usual, 100%
wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to go up ANY
level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at a lower
level--even at the first level. Duh!

> And you were told the basis of my input was
> what was assumed would be the case at the strategy's inception

and

> wasn't reality. So after you finish crying over another letdown,
let
> me hear your excuse for running head-first into that same wall

this

> time! And I though geeks worked only with correct figures.....

ROTFLMAO.

I'd be laughing instead of crying here too if i were you. Whatever it
takes to make you feel better after looking so stupid!

> > LMAO. To lose a session at $25 you had to lose at $10. It's as
easy as that. The numbers don't lie.
>
> And to lose for the 12th time at hand #16 means you wouldn've had
to
> lose 11 times before it. You gonna count those as 11 session

losses

> just as you would count each denominational loss within the
strategy
> until the goal is hit, a loss? How stupid. Are you THAT desperate
to
> come up with a variation of strategy to fit in that geek head?

More scrambling. Everyone can see the obvious. 30>22.

You avoided the question again....hmmmmm--what could THAT mean.....

>
> > > Robbie can't lie well
> > > > enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob
just
> > said
> > > > he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's

also

> > > claimed
> > > > only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the $25
> level
> > 30
> > > > times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's
lying.)
> > >
> > > More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY

level

is
> a loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a

win??

>
> > It can.
>
> Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you don't
> continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are

claiming

> my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants the
Dunce
> Cap on your head even more permanently.

Yes, I certainly am claiming your "strategy isn't what it is".

Thanks for proving it to everyone.

Oh gee thanks! So now I can claim, according to YOUR rules that any
cash out should count as a win, that my record is more like 478-31!!
You're a freakin' GENIUS!!! A stupid geek (especially here)....but a
genius!

> > > you'll see my record is a combination of

> > > ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more
> > recently since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other strategies.
> It's a miracle that you can put your shoes on each day without my
> directing you how to.
>
> > Seems like a lot of words and yet no evidence to refute my
> > statements. The con has been exposed.
>
> Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission of not
> having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute after
> proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both shoes on
> each day without help!

Now he's back to claiming I haven't been to his site. You can't

stick with a position for one minute.

I'm claiming that? Are you blind again?? In what way does saying that
help build your waning self-confidence here?

> > > The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy

over

> my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You also
> need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my
strategies.
> >
> > Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies. It's

a

> > little late to start whining.
>
> It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every time

you

> attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't happen to a
> better gut either!

30>22.

Good job, Einstein! 227>31!

>
> > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-
> > > information about how I play and what I've accomplished, you
> might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > >
> > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > >
> > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
> >
> > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's in
denial.

Where's the denial? 227>31 too!

>
> The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater. You're
> argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your eyes,
and
> you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?

30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's lies.

Make that a large for little dicky please....

-----------------------------------

Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > Anyone can regularly dump other funds into their account
for
> > > > whatever reason they choose to. For future purposes so you
> don't embarrass yourself again, when you say you can 'prove' you
have
> won, make sure you actually can do that without scrambling around
at
> the 11th hour making up excuses and trying to save face by having
> others 'trust' you.
> > > > > Here's what I will always require for absolute proof:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Trackable bank withdrawals to play with, or other
> verifiable
> > > > methods of where and how you obtained the cash. The IRS doe
not
> > > accept "I had the cash in the house" and I don't either.
> > >
> > > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> > >
> > > OK. You can prove that the money you're playing with TODAY

came

> out
> > > of X withdrawal, and what you claimed to have won TODAY is in

Y

> > > deposit.
> >
> > That's not the way I do it. Over the last winter you will see

ONE

> > withdrawl when I got to LV. You will see several deposits along
the
> > way. Since I deal in smaller denoms I have no reason to run to
the
> > bank every day.
>
> I understand that. That's exactly the resson for

accurate/truthful

> and detailed casino records.

I have more details then you would ever want.

You've shown no details and only basic stuff. You don't have what it
takes to prove your underware are clean let alone you win at
anything, in fact, you prove you are a loser here on a daily basis---
both at the casinos and in life!

>
> > > > > 2. Contemporaneous gambling records of each casino visit.
If
> > you have been audited for the period and the IRS accepts this
> record as complete and accurate, we're in business. If not, you
must
> come up with another method to prove the money said won gambling
was
> in fact won playing video poker.
> > >
> > > > These are pretty much worthless since they can be built to
say
> > > > anything you want them to say. That said, I have 'em.
> > >
> > > As a vp player who files as a professional gambler, I am
inclined
> > to look the other way when someone says something like that.

You

> > > probably haven't yet been audited (I can do something about
that
> > too) but if you say they are worthless because you lie about

them

> or manipulate them, then I have to believe you and you'll have to
> come up with another method of proving that you won the deposited
> money playing vp.
>
> > They are worthless because they are simply a written record

where

> > anyone could lie. You should also note that you and IRS are
looking
> > for the exact opposite claims. You think I claim to many wins
while
> > the IRS is looking for unreported wins.
>
> Normal, truthful and respectable people DON'T lie on their

income.

And, that has nothing to do with what I stated. I simply stated
anyone "could" lie. You know, a FACT.

So what's that supposed to mean--you DON'T lie? HAHAHA! Then why
bring it up?? Caught again.....

> You win $45 today then you have to report it. If you're trying to
> sell me that you won the money playing video poker then it would
also
> have to be reported as income to the IRS.

Already done.

But you've also stated you don't keep contemporaneous records. First
this then that. I'd say you're running on empty and are struggling to
get a refill.

> If you don't, then I'd have
> no official choice but to take it as you did not win as you

claimed

> to have done.

Like I said, already done and offered to you as proof of my

winnings.

All you've repeatedly done is submit excuse after excuse as to why
what I require as proof isn't necessary, and the limited records and
statements you DO have are sufficient. Typical backtracking and
escaping thru one of your loopholes that you depend upon whenever
facing me.

>
> > > > > 3. Re-deposits exactly correlating to the time & amount
> claimed won or lost.
> > > >
> > > > Time is meaningless. The only thing that matters is for all
the
> > > cash deposits to match said winnings.
> > >
> > > THAT's what's meaningless. Where'd you really get the money?
your
> > > portfolio isn't absolute in that respect and given that you
have
> no qualms about lying to the IRS about your play, you'd certainly
lie
> > to me about it.
> >
> > Actually, my portfolio is almost absolute. However, I can see
this
> > point. I brought up the possibility of unreported income in the
> past with your claims so it is certainly an issue.
>
> The 'possibility' is always there---but not with me.

Of course not ... Rob would never lie ... wink, wink ... 30>22.

Your crutch again.... But you're right--I NEVER lie.

> You don't file
> as a professional gambler and expect to 'get away' with

unreported

> income. I learned on my first gambling audit in 1999 that if you
only
> report the W2G wins and expect them to believe you never won less
> than $1200 in any visit, they'll get you.

Not likely for .25/.50 denoms. I can see the point for larger

denoms.

> they'll also get you for
> not showing a withdrawal within a reasonable amount of time of

your

> casino visits--

Again, I think the denom makes all the difference here. Not to
mention my exact records of every casinos visit.

They and I don't care about what denominations are played. Not one
bit. The records have to be there or tehy'll make a claim and so will
I.

> so your system of a single withdrawal is gonna bite
> you down the road. They'll just add in a projected 'win' amount

and

> add it to your income based on your average track record, and

you'd

> have no way to dispute it without back-up documentation.

Not a problem.

> That's why
> misscrap is worried. She's never told the right ways to do things
> because she gets her info from the Queen, who is always looking

for

> more gambling cash.

Lie. Having records of every casino visit is exactly what Jean
promotes.

The only things Jean promotes is problem gambling, addiction to slot
club card use, all the junk she sells, living in sin with old men who
supposedly will leave women with healthy life insurance policies
after they run the guys into the ground, going thru garbage cans
for "life's tiny treasures", and playing for the points instead of
for the money. Oh, and moving to Lv just to be closer to the
machines. No wonder you believe what this lady says.

>
> > > > > 4. Bank statements showing any and all deposits made
> throughout the period in question, and a description of each.
> > > >
> > > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> > >
> > > Including descriptions? No. You have to prove what they're

for.

> >
> > The bank deposits only indicates CASH.
>
> Then how can that identify every deposit?

All bank transactions are dated. I though everyone knew that.

The key word is "IDENTIFY".....

>
> > > > > 5. Year-ending 1040 review. W2G's are meaningless because
we
> > all win a lot more than W2G's show.
> > > >
> > > > All there. So, you got that $10K?
> > >
> > > You really looked a lot better on this before you started
> > scrambling around trying to make up things to support your

false

> reporting here.
> >
> > Is that false wins or losses? You have stated both ...
>
> It's turned into false 'everything' until you factualize

SOMETHING.

I guess Robbie doesn't like the facts ...

False 'facts' might hold water with a make-believe artist, but here
in the real world you need to tighten up your strings a little more
by kust a tad.....

> >
> > > Just as in almost everything else you get involved in here,

the

> > more you release information the worse you look. (REASON #1 as

to

> why the geeks are shut down and removed by the Program Manager

when

> the real discussions begin). At first you had 60% credibility.

Now

> it's 40%. I require 100%. Keep trying.
> >
> > I think this has gone far enough. I did all this so everyone
could
> > see exactly WHY it is impossible for Robbie to ever PROVE his
> claimed results. The issue of outside cash will always exist and
> there is NO way to prove that anyone's claims are valid. For
example,
> Robbie could restore old cars and sell them for cash. Use that
money
> to supplement his claims and no one would be the wiser. It was

very

> satisfying to see Robbie spell out exactly why his own claims are
> worthless.
>
> 100% false. As a professional gambler I keep a GAMBLING ONLY
account
> that has all transactions only for my gambling trips, posted and
> dated, and my casino and IRS records all correlate EXACTLY to my
bank
> account statement for gaming.

So, you're saying it would not be possible to take cash gained from
selling old cars or whatever and supplement your wins? You know,
basic money laundering 101. LMAO.

Selling 'old cars' requires a transaction record for tax purposes,
and nothing goes onto a gaming record other than gaming activity.
You're promoting illegal activity and false-reporting. If that's how
you want to operate, you'll never be a neighbor of mine.

> There's nothing else in there except
> some withdrawals of the profits and interest for buying things

when

> there's no trips involved. I've even had the 5-year audit to

verify

> everything -- all of which is why I put up a huge amount against
the
> fool radio jock. Our normal joint account is used only for bills
and
> expenses, never is cash taken out, and the deposits are all from

my

> wife's work--except when we bought the house recently when I made
> deposits from my brokerage account. Everything's very precise,
clear,
> and traceable. And anyone would lose to me if they bet me on my
> proof. And when I offerred to pay for the Nevada Arbitrator who's
> decision would be final and binding, that's like a final nail in
the
> coffin of any fool that would bet me. That's why the jock backed
off
> and that's why you did.

ROTFLMAO. I guess my records aren't believeable because I might
supplement them from other sources, but Rob's records are

believeable

because ... what?, He said so? ... Don't you remember, little

man ...

30>22.

When you make things up you really try to believe them. that's clear.
You've said you twist the law and you want me to believe you don't
LIE? Try fooling someone else.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > Whew!! This book really must've hit HOME with you!! Not

only

> are
> > > you lashing out at me, but anyone else who's come on and made
you
> > feel like poopoo.
> > >
> > > LMAO. The only thing that "hit home" was you little man. You
say
> > one thing and do another. Shame on you for supporting the EXACT
> > behavior that leads to addiction. I thought it was refreshing
that
> MY
> > viewpoint would be a roadblock to addiction. Is Robbie really a
> shill
> > for the casinos? You be the judge.
> >
> > It's appearing more like you believe YOU'RE being judged by

this

> > book....and you ARE.
>
> Just the opposite. The book describes behavior 180 degrees

opposite

> of what I do except for time spent gambling.

Denial: The Number 1 trait of problem gamblers.

Yes, we've seen it in you often.

And, if you're going to
> use time spent, then I can easily set the amount to define your
play
> as an addiction as well. Not to mention that we've already

covered

> this when I sent you to the various websites on gambling problems.

Gambling guilt: Trying to write-off your own problem by comparing

it

favorably to what others reasonably do.

Yes, we've seen it in you often.

>
> > Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> > casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-gambling,
> > everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of seriously
> > inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.
>
> And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what you did?
> Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone else has
the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really this
stupid?

How about listening to experience for a change instead of coming
apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know i'm right?

Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences simply don't
apply to me. However, they still apply to you. I think it's pretty
obvious that you've simply altered your addiction. You are now
addicted to your CON. You deny each and every FACT that demonstrates
unequivocally that your system is of no value. You even go to the
extremes of claiming machines cycles, just like our addicted gambler
in the book ... not to mention your claims that NGC regulations are
not enforced. It's obvious to everyone else, it's obvious to your
inner voice ... look in the mirror.

>
> > You fit EVERY
> > alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease, and
> denial-
> > -which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug on

top

of it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....
>
> OK. Name a couple that you haven't made up in your own mind so

you

> can continue your con. I went over the 20 GA questions and only
> answered yes partially to two of them. It's so obvious why you

keep

> pushing the addiction button. THE CON.

DENIAL! Your #1 nemisis.
Moving to be closer to the machines.
Daily play that interrupts what COULD be a normal life.
Inability to live a single day without either playing vp, talking
about it, having anxiety over it, or all three.

Like I said ... 3 weeks and counting. How long since you gambled?

Should I continue?

Describing your addiction? ... feel free. I have no problem
discussing addiction since I'm clearly not addicted. Look in the
mirror ... think about all the lies you tell simply to protect your
con. Listen to your inner voice.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Rob claims all APers are addicts, however, in this

book

> the
> > > > victim was not an APer. He had no knowledge that VP is
random.
> He
> > > had
> > > > no knowledge about paybacks. He didn't realize playing

short

> > coins
> > > > impacts his potential return. He had no knowledge of money
> > > management
> > > > and bankroll considerations.
> > > >
> > > > ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are
> inflicted
> > > with the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos.
> > >
> > > Sorry to come in with the facts again.
> >
> > Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!
>
> You do remember that the amount of time spent in a casino is not
> relevant as far as GA is concerned? Of course you do, I already
> pointed that out long ago.

Your 'spin' on that would include the blind. Irrelevant. The more
time one who GAMBLES is in a casino determines their degree of
degeneracy.

This is known as illogic. If I remember right it is one of the signs
of mental retardation. It's the inability to understand the fact that
(A imples B) does not mean (B implies A). For example, Rob uses the
facts that addicts gamble a lot to conclude that a lot of gambling
implies one is an addict. Let's look at another example ...
alcoholics drink almost every day. So, using Rob's logic, if you
drink every day you are an alcoholic. Another example ... all cars
have wheels clearly doesn't mean all things with wheels are cars.

And, instead of accepting this FACT, you
> come right out and say "the degree to which they are inflicted

with

> the disease is defined by how often they go to casinos". This is

an

> outright LIE since you have been previously educated. Add another
one to the list.

Being 'educated' by an addict who is in extreme denial is both
illogical and of no added value. Think about it..

LMAO. RIV, you said it very well.

>
> >
> > However, the number of trips
> > > to the casino is not a reasonable measure of addiction. If

your

> > > statement were true then everyday workers would all be

addicted

> to
> > > their jobs. Church goers would be addicted to church. Anyone
who
> > > regularly exercises would be addicted to exercise. I could go
on
> > and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.
> >
> > There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed into
denial
> > again as we speak.
>
> Yes, we can see that in your answer. You ALREADY know the TRUTH

and

> yet you come back and lie. Don't you have the faintest clue that
> these obvious lies make you look completely foolish?

Every time you claim I'm 'lying' it's tainted by the ugly black

cloud

of denial and guilt. And deceit.

LMAO. Now that you've concluded you are an alcoholic, when are you
going to AA?

>
> > Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
> > black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is
simply
> an
> > addict's way of creating a net of false security around their
sick
> > activity.
>
> Once again you start off with an asserted lie, you must really

love

> being the villiage idiot.

Undeniable fact: Anyone held in the grips of addiction will call

any

person who reveals the addict's problem, a liar.

Is that why you go to such depths to protect your con? Of course it
is. You will call anyone who attacks your con just about anything to
avoid discussing YOUR addiction.

It's well known that addiction has genetic roots. Current research
indicates that low levels of norepinephrine are found in those with
addictive tendencies. Since we already know you have these
tendencies, guess what? Now do your understand your internal voice?

>
> > >
> > > > No, the poor guy that mirrors your video poker life of
> addiction
> > is not an AP, but for you to single out that unimportant fact

is

> just
> > another knife in your own chest.
> > >
> > > Did I mention babbling at the end of the last post? Robbie
comes
> > > through again.
> >
> > And that knife seems to have been twisting around in there for
> quite
> > a while.....
>
> Yawn. You even admit this guy is completely different than an

APer.

> Need I say more. LMAO.

Addicts are addicts, whether they play stupidly or think they play
intelligently. You are no different than the author.

I think we can all agree on one part of your statement "Addicts are
addicts". You still demonstrate all the symptoms.

> > > > > 3) A quote from the victim that Rob highlighted ... "I

went

> > from
> > > > > machine to machine until I found one in a good count
cycle."
> > > Rob's
> > > > > comment ... "even back then". Here we have an addict that
is
> > > losing
> > > > > regularly by looking for "a good count cycle" and Rob

seems

> to
> > > > think that implies "good cycles" exist. Rob, didn't you
notice?
> > > This
> > > > guy LOST bigtime. Every time he THOUGHT he came up with a
> pattern
> > > it
> > > > > evaporated. Why? Because they don't exist.
> > > >
> > > > Tell the whole story....little dicky. Be fair. A 'count
cycle'
> to
> > > > this guy has nothing to do with if a machine is in a hot or
> cold
> > > > cycle---
> > >
> > > What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your
> addiction
> > > promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.
> >
> > "good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't call
> > that 'good' because I don't play for them.
>
> "good" and "hot" are just two different words of the same idea.

You

> have your ideas and he had his. They are both meaningless and
promote addiction.

Then you didn't get what the author was saying. I suspect that's

part

of your program of denial.

I understood exactly what the author was saying. Now, the real
question is whether you'll see how it relates to you.

>
> > Your boy did here. It's
> > probably 'good' to you because it'll keep you at the addict
> machines
> > longer.
>
> LMAO. You're the one that believes in cycles, so basically you

just

> agreed that believing in cycles is addictive. QED.

Fact: anyone who knows and accepts that machines are programmed to
run in cycles plays less time and leaves much sooner. That kind of
blows your newest theory out of the water.

Leaves A MACHINE sooner. Not the casino. LMAO, maybe you are mentally
retarded ...

>
> >
> > > > but if it hits a certain 'better than trips' hand at a
> > > > certain time. Then the guy does something to his bet, and I
> don't
> > > > remember what he said. Comparing them to what I know about
> > machines is very different, because I don't stick around for
> > > the 'evaporation' phase.
> >
> > > What part of "went from machine to machine" didn't you
> understand?
> > > This guy kept moving just like you just said. Sorry to blow
your
> > con again.
> >
> > So now you're contradicting yourself.
>
> Nope.

Certainly you are if you understand why you said what you said.
>
> > You always say it doesn't
> > matter if you stay at one or play a thousand machines in a day.
>
> Lie, I've never said that.

Sure you did if you clear the webs of truth about you that this

book

has caused.
>
> > Now
> > you say it matters and makes him lose. Get your story straight
> before
> > you try to make up analogies.
>
> Not my story. You're the one claiming machines have cycles. You
just
> knocked yourself in this last response. How sweet it is ...

When you stumble like this you really stumble. If you call the

effort

you make to escape the point, then it must be sweet to you.

LMAO. I'm sorry that your retarded brain let you down again. How
sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > > And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> > > > programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines absolutely
do.
> > My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who wins
the
> > > lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in 1000
> > chance of success and we already know you've been lying with

the

> > 30>22 factoid.
> >
> > In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking my
> chances
> > of success have been 1 in a million.
>
> Since you keep changing your story, that could easily be the

case.

> Sooner or later you'll have to admit that you lied (since 30>22).
> When you admit the truth, I will once again need to change the
> simulator.

If you would have read my strategiy with comprehension instead of
making things up about it as you go along just so the sim results
wouldn't look so great to you, you wouldn't continue to look so

weak

when you say I lied or that nonsense about 30-22.

Just the facts, as usual.

Hiding behind time
and error while generalizing about their spin in the future is
exactly what denyers and liars always do.

RIV at his best.

>
> > A geek will do whatever's
> > necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's
eating
> > away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real.
> Eventually,
> > it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've never
> > existed either.
>
> LMAO. It's really been "eating" at me to see your lies exposed

for

> everyone to see.

Denial: the #1 trait of problem gamblers.

Or ... as in this case ... someone addicted to a con. You know it's
very possible that Rob started out believing that his progression and
special plays made a difference. Since he failed at AP he probably
thought it was flawed. When he had some luck, he got on a crusade,
then got to write for GT, got a few others to side with him, felt
important. This got the norepinephrine levels elevated and the
addiction was born.

Now, I use your own book to demonstrate what really
> is involved in addiction, and, instead of supporting behaviors

that

> would limit addiction, you come out and oppose them. Your words

are

> getting so hollow here you best think about another break.

"It's the other guys, not me" said little dicky!

"It's the other guys, not me" said little robbie!

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) This book highlighted 5% as the number of gamblers

that

> are
> > > > > potential victims. I've also seen 3%.
> > > >
> > > > I just saw "over 20% and likely far worse" for overall
gamblers
> > on CNBC, and they didn't break it down into the worst offending
> group-
> > video poker players. Alone, I'm sure that number is well over

50%.

> > >
> > > Of course you did. I'm sure if you define addiction to your
> liking
> > > you can come up with any number you like. Try this one,

Addict:

> > > Anyone who visits a casino more than once every 3 months.

Now,

> all
> > > APers would be addicts ... and, so would little Robbie. The 3-
5%
> > > number is based on gamblers who've come forward with admitted
> > > gambling problems and projecting that to the entire gambling
> > > population.
> >
> > You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of

going

> thru
> > all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the

facts

> that
> > hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And since
> > DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!
>
> Facts make Robbie babble.

CNBC had the facts. You've got denial. Any questions?

Sure, what did they base the number on? Your IQ?

Here's the latest. About 2 million Americans (<1%) are believed to be
pathological gamblers. Another 4-8 million (2-3%) are believe to have
some gambling problems. Around 85% of the population has gambled.

http://www.ncpgambling.org/about_problem/about_problem_faq.asp

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the point to keep in
> > > > > mind is that these are POTENTIAL victims. It means they
have
> > the
> > > > > personality traits required. As such, this is basically a
> cross
> > > > > section. It also means that only one in twenty APers are
> likely
> > > to
> > > > be victims as well. So much for Rob's assertion that nearly
all
> > > APers
> > > > > are addicts. Now, Rob will probably argue that AP is
somehow
> a
> > > > > drawing force for people with the right personality

traits.

> > This
> > > > > doesn't hold water. The victim in this book was simply
hooked
> > on
> > > a
> > > > > few good wins and the belief that he could come up with a
> > system.
> > > > > APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> > > > > mathematically proven strategies.
> > > >
> > > > Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you.
Another
> > > > collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to sleep
> with
> > > your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you
> unless
> > you create the theory.
> > >
> > > Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the
book
> > and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.
> >
> > ?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the
nightmare
> > you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You keep
> blaming
> > all woes on 'other people' -
>
> Name a single woe I have blamed on anyone. Please provide
references. PS. I do blame AP for adding to my taxable income.

#1 thru #1,000,000: Blamed the wife for your gambling problem.

And ... where is that reference? Nowhere to be found. Just like all
your lies. You know, those lies you keep inventing to hide your
addiction to your CON.

>
> > which is understandable because while
> > you're in the midst of your wretched dream, the burden is NEVER
> your
> > own. Didn't you realize that when you blamed your addiction on
your
> > wife, that you had this telling 'blame' problem to begin with?
>
> LMAO. In one paragraph Robbie says I deny addiction, then later

he

> says I blame it on my wife. Which one is it little man? Pick one
lie
> and try to stick to it for a change. These constant descrepancies
in
> Rob's statement are vivid examples that he has no clues about me.
He
> simply keeps bringing this up so he doesn't have to answer
questions
> like ... 30>22.

Just like all problem gamblers, you chase away the truth and view

it

as an attack in any form. When you claim gambling is a hobby, you
deny addiction....the same addiction you blame your wife for

causing

it. You see, the truth is simple, regardless of the weasel-word

spin

you put on the words.

RIV is in form today. How sweet it is ...

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Rob highlighted another line ... "From that minute on

I

> > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > move to LV". He evidently thinks my part time residence

in

LV
> > is
> > > > > similar to this individual who stated this after a big

win.

> Rob
> > > > just
> > > > > doesn't get it. The reason this guy felt that way is
because
> he
> > > had
> > > > > the addiction personality traits. Personally, I've had

many

> big
> > > > wins
> > > > > and never felt the urge to live in LV because of them. I
> never
> > > quit
> > > > > jobs so I could be closer to a casino. I didn't even buy

my

> LV
> > > > > residence until 6 years after I retired even though I've
been
> > > > playing
> > > > > VP for 6 years before I retired. Rob, just doesn't
understand
> > > that
> > > > 19
> > > > > out of 20 people can gamble without being addicted. But
then,
> > > that
> > > > > would blow his entire reason for existence. His con.
> > > >
> > > > Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the moment
you
> > > > reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be
closer
> to
> > > the machines.
> > >
> > > LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his
> asserted
> > > lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms

for

6
> > > years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish
every
> > > time to try to save face.
> >
> > Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring.
>
> Why not? The guy in the book moved without retiring. He left one
job
> and got another one in LV.

In your usual effort to use meaningless analogies to cover for your
excuses and problem, you predictably became lost here
again. "Immediately after retiring" has nothing to do with the

author

and everything to do with you.

You stated "nobody" ... I gave you an example where you were wrong.
Even a cave man could understand this.

That's what addiction REALLY does. It
> leads people to react instead of act. You are losing ALL
credibility
> here. Is that what you intended?
>
> > For all
> > we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over
whether
> > to move or not....and as usual, you got your way.
>
> LMAO. Robbie turns a question into an asserted lie. You really

must

> enjoy looking foolish, why else would you do it so often.

You have the traits of ugliness in everything you do, little dicky.

I

simply bring them to surface.

Does anyone else detect a little frustration here? Pretty obvious
that Rob's position has fallen completely apart. How sweet it is ...

>
> > Now you know why
> > she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a

compromise

> > where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know that.
>
> More lies ... we're still waiting for you explain 30>22.

Every time you mention the 30-22 thing---which I've lost tract of
what it means anyway---it shows how uncomfortable you are with the
baloney your writing. It's like some sort of crutch, and it

basically

confirms I'm spot-on right about you.

30>22 ... PROOF of your lies. Let's watch Robbie's frustration build
some more ...

>
> > The
> > addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long
before
> > the final and full move is made.
>
> Yeah, I'm thinking Carefree, AZ. I hear it's a good place
for "loser"
> watching.

Oops! Being a little testy and jealous in the same sentence are we??

Nope, a little humor that went right by you. Could it be the
frustration?

>
> > >
> > > > Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> > > > after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the casinos
> every
> > > > day? HA!
> >
> > > Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic

attempts

> to
> > > save face up your sleeve?
> >
> > It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky.
> Minimalizing
> > the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.
>
> Once again, the facts leave Robbie with nothing but the babbles.
You
> just said I couldn't stay away for 6 months and I demonstrated

you

> were wrong. You sure are looking foolish today. Good job.

After I demonstrated how you deny and lie at every turn, the hole
you're digging just keeps getting deeper.

We're still waiting for that reference. Just one ...

>
> > >
> > > > It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---just
> > > > like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling

book

> > about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines, along
> with
> > your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher

piece

of
> > meat on your plate.
> > >
> > > Did I mention babbling?
> >
> > I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those who
move
> to
> > LV too.....if I were the infected fool.
>
> So, EVERYONE who moves to LV is an addict ... LMAO. How does that
> clown suit fit?

What irks you is that we're just talking about YOU & the Queen

right

now. Diluting the issue only makes you look all the more guilty of
degenerate behavior.

I didn't dilute anything ... you said "move to LV", not me. LMAO.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) Rob also highlighted victim stating ... "The only

thing

> > > constant
> > > > > was spare time and money I was wasting to the detriment

of

> all
> > > > other activities." Obviously this guy was addicted. How

does

> this
> > > > relate to me?
> > > >
> > > > The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe

you

> have
> > > > other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the
> thought
> > > of video poker that there really is nothing else in your life
> that
> > > comes close to measuring up to that grab.
> > >
> > > This insert before my description of what I do shows how much
> > little Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the
> > description but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies
> anyway.
> > Just makes you look foolish, little man. Thanks.
> >
> > All your famous 'insert' tells is the interests you've let go

of

> > because of your gambling problem.
>
> More lies. You must love being the villiage idiot.

then read on.....you'll be enlightened and surprised at how easy

you

are to dissect.

I suspect RIV may be preparing another salvo.

>
> > Going to the gym once in 3 months
> > would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the
> machines
> > such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest".
>
> Is that what you did? Interesting. I'm sure glad I'm much smarter
> than you.

Need I say any more? You do so well at digging your own grave.

You've said more than enough to convince us all that you will do
anything to protect your con and your addiction to it.

>
> > It's all a feel-
> > good joke and you know it. Stop fooling yourself.

> > > > I have other activities (golf, bowling, reading, movies,
etc).
> I
> > > > > still spend too much spare time watching TV. I win money.

I

> > guess
> > > > Rob was trying to point out all the differences bewteen
myself
> > and
> > > an
> > > > > addicted gambler.
> > > >
> > > > You'd have to do a whole lot more here to convince anyone

you

> > don't
> > > > live to play video poker.
> > >
> > > No, I think everyone here can easily tell I don't. Only you,
> little
> > > man, lie about it. Robbie, who needs to insult any and

everyone

> who
> > > follows proven mathematical AP, and does so in order to

spread

> his
> > > CON.
> >
> > The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it yet.
The
> > rest of us can, CON.
>
> LMAO. This entire post of yours is almost constant babbling. You
have
> not refuted a single thing I posted. Instead you continue making
> yourself look idiotic by supporting addictive behavior and

stating

> outright lies. I've got you right where I want you and I know
you'll
> come back with the same old drivel again. You have no other

choice.

> How sweet it is ...

95% of what you're being accused of here by reason of degeneracy

over

gambling is DENIED. Is that a surprise?? HAHA!

Good going RIV, you've nailed Rob again. His suppport of addictive
behaviors simply to continue his con is degenerate. His lies to
protect the con are simply denials of the truth. I couldn't have said
it better myself.

You won't say it here,
but i know you are second-guessing your move to LV. Not only doies

it

contribute to your gambling problem, the city is a cesspool and
getting worse.

100% wrong. While I may not stay in LV forever, the move has already
been a complete success. Significant appreciation of my home,
gambling success, playing golf all year long ... how sweet it is ...

>
> > >
> > > > You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> > > > hand says they have it all under control, then on the other
> brags
> > > > about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,
> > >
> > > Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a simple
> > > response to your statements that I always lost.
> >
> > 'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under
> control'
> > yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a

HUGE

> > amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period of

time.

>
> Just the facts, as usual. We already covered the fact that "time"
has
> nothing to do with addiction.

Yup, in your own mind it doesn't. What an idiot....and that's kind.

LMAO. I don't think there's any cure for mental retardation but you
could check.

You already know this but have run out
> of other lies as I proved them all wrong. How sweet it is ...
>
> > And just like Dancer's baloney claims, my '6 month run' should
not
> be
> > indicative of such compulsive play BEFORE or SINCE that 6-month
> > period, nosiree! I have it ALL under control now, yes I do, and

i

> had
> > it all under control before too! That 6 month period was simply
the
> > period of fame that I chose to claim my prowess within!!"
>
> Once again Rob's jealousy of Dancer rears it's ugly head. Face

it,

> little man, you will never be Bob Dancer. You're too stupid.

Yup again! Avoid the real issue. But what choice do you have other
than to ignore the truth about what i said? Even if you discussed

it

or refuted it with the usual denial, it would weaken your position
and, in fact, weaken your spirit of the ongoing lying you seem to
survive with.

RIV is hot today. Just hit Robbie with the truth and listen.

>
> > >
> > > > then denies everything I
> > > > say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,
> > >
> > > That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?
> >
> > Why would anyone expect you to tell the truth about this? After
all
> > your denials and lies on just about every other subject, you
don't
> > think you've laid out your legacy?
>
> I do believe I have accomplished exactly what I set out to
> accomplish ... Proving Rob Singer is a LAF.

Yup--avoid the issue again. I wonder why.....

RIV ... it's not hard to understand. You're simply addicted to your
con and you'll do anything to protect it.

>
> > >
> > > > and then says "I
> > > > only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any live
> body
> > to believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful
> > minimalization of a problem
> > >
> > > Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only

gamble

3
> > > hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to
gamble
> 6
> > > hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different then
your
> > > working on old cars.
> >
> > There's that analogy of degenerate sickness to productive
> activities
> > again!
>
> I thought you'd like that one. Too bad for your con that it's
another
> simple truth.
>
> > When cornered with sense, come out denying and
> > scrambling....with that ol' needy confidence-building spirit!
>
> The babbles go on and on ...
>
> > >
> > > > ---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
> > > > into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning

prowess

> > there in some type of genuflection move
> > >
> > > If "running right back" is waiting a week then your

definition

> may
> > be a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my
responses
> > were to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if the
> facts
> > and your lies don't mesh.
> >
> > OK, which of you was sick for a week and held the addict party
> back?
> > good thing though. It kept your losses down.
>
> And on and on ... Let's see I'm over 3 weeks since my last casino
> visit ... what about you?
>
> > >
> > > > ---you RADIATE problems to the rest of us.
> > >
> > > Assert lie.
> >
> > Prove you don't.
>
> Talk about an impotent reply. Did I mention that you are starting
to
> make all the other villiage idiots look smart?

And, um....the proof is WHERE??

Simple, your constant use of illogic.

>
> > >
> > > > And to top it all off, you turn the other cheek to me---who
has
> > > > ADMITTED to being addicted to the game as a player just

like

> you
> > > > claim to be!
> > >
> > > I only deal in facts. If you can't handle that then just say

so.

> >
> > I think we've seen just what kind of 'facts' you bring to the
> > table.....That's kinda what most of the LV cocktail waitresses
call
> > those two bumps on their chests too!
>
> ROTFLMAO. Is this the best the villiage idiot can offer? Does
anyone
> have a stronger word than "impotent"?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Finally, I don't want to downplay the real set of

problems

> that
> > > > > gambling can bring to thousands of addiction victims.

Even

a
> > few
> > > > > APers will fall victim. However, I suspect the few

addicted

> > APers
> > > > > will have fewer problems, if any. That's the very nature

of

> AP.
> > > >
> > > > > Now, prepare yourself for more babbling from Rob. It's

what

> he
> > > > always does when presented with facts.
> > > >
> > > > Facts? Facts?? You call those FACTS??? All you did was make
> > another desperate attempt at catching your breath.
>
> Yes FACTS. You know, like casino time NOT being a cause of
addiction
> whereas chasing non-existent "cycles" is. Yes FACTS.

Here's some more education: Chasing cycles is dumb if you intend to
try it. Detecting your machine's cycle is intelligence personified.

I

have it, you don't. You never will. And your envious that I have

that

over you too. Next.

LMAO. Clear addictive denial.

>
> > >
> > > ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your
address.
> > > Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.
> >
> > It's understandable that an addict wouldn't take a scolding too
> well.
> > But if you can't see that all you did here was deny, run around
> > naked, and always say "it's not ME...it's THEM" when it came to
> > problem gamblers, then you're gonna need much more attention

for

> your
> > disorder. Keep the comments coming so i can continue to show

just

> how
> > deeply you're entrenched in the disease.
>
> This is soooooo funny. Rob obviously didn't think that a book on

an

> addict's life would make him look this bad. Get over it.

Deny, avoid, and hand-off. Desperation at its height.

RIV does it again.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > I think $1910....or even $1500....is a fine result from
> less
> > > than
> > > > > an hour's play, don't you!??? And not to rub in your
> > inferiority
> > > > > complex, but the bankroll for winning $2500 is $17,200 +.
> Seems
> > > > your
> > > > > facts are just a wee bit on the wavering side again.
> > > > >
> > > > > My facts are just fine. It's your stupid win goal, not

mine.

> > > >
> > > > Face it. You realize how stupid you are for not following
what
> > I'm
> > > > saying and you deeply regret the error. To get your facts
right
> > you
> > > > have to know what to look at. You never have.
> > >
> > > You mean the fact that you change you goals and have no
> discipline.
> >
> > Let's see.....Go into the casino everyday and pound away at the
> > machines making believe I have a 1% advantage, or set whatever
goal
> > I'd like, attain it, and go home when I hit it?? That's a real
> tough
> > choice, and I wonder which one requires more discipline.....
>
> Certainly NOT changing goals every other trip, or changing

between

> 5/6 levels. Especially from someone who claims discipline is the
> reason for their success.

I see your problem--you've blocked out the structure of my play
strategies and instead inserted something weird that you made up!

You

really can't comprehend it can you!

Oh, I comprehend your lies, alright. Too bad you can't come up with
anything to refute my statements. It makes it obvious that I speak
the truth.

Every trip/every session is
different, and every trip has a different goal. You'd never get

that

because addicts only goals are to play. As much as possible. With

no

rhyme or reason.

Your denials to protect your con will get you nowhere. Like I've
pointed out many times before, a sure sign of a con is a complicated
system that changes all the time.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also wanted to highlight another item. Rob
> never
> > > > > responded to this question so let me ask him again. How
can
> > you
> > > > have
> > > > > only 8 losses at the $25 level and yet claim a total of

31

> > > session
> > > > > losses overall? Hint: This is impossible, I suspect Rob
just
> > > > didn't
> > > > > think through this lie. Of course, this calls into

question

> > > > > EVERYTHING that Rob has ever claimed. If he will lie

about

> his
> > > > > gambling record here, how can anyone accept ANYTHING he
says
> as
> > > the
> > > > > truth.
> > > > > > > > > Sorry little dicky, but in your continuing quest

to

> one-
> > > up
> > > > me
> > > > > you just seem to keep falling back on your face that's
> already
> > > > > completely covered with egg. I saved you the

embarrassment

> > > before,
> > > > > but you're asking for another smack--so here goes!---8
losses
> > (or
> > > > > close to that) at $25/1 @ $100/and close to 22 on $10.
Read
> > > Rule
> > > > #6
> > > > > again from my strategy page. It'll
> > > > > > > Robbie's Rule #6: When caught in an obvious lie ...
come
> up
> > > > with
> > > > > a new lie.
> > > > > > That had to hurt, I know..... but feel free to read the
> rule--
> > > as
> > > > > I'm sure you already have today. I can't imagine the pain

a

> > geek
> > > > must feel when he's been so clearly trumped by his own
failure
> to
> > > > review the facts! Oh what joy!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect my version, of whatever rule#6 is supposed to

be,

> is
> > > far
> > > > > more accurate. Sorry, did I just blow your con here?
> > > >
> > > > your version was to guess however necessary to create a
> scenario
> > > > where I was either losing, dumb for doing it, or lying. But
you
> > > ended
> > > > up disappointed and shocked at the same time. Big surprise.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Scrambling does not hide your lies.
> >
> > Simple truth little dicky.....simple truth. I enjoy watching

you

> > squirm with envy over my unparrelled success, and as you make

up

> > scenarios about my strategies to help ease your pain, I watch

as

it
> > actually increases it. Talk about thrills!
>
> Could it be little Robbie finally understands the impossibility

of

> his claims? How sweet it is ...

Success equates to actual and not 'possible'. That's what gets you
about all this. You don't understand it and can't make up anything
that disputes it, so you baffle yourself and make believe others

will

be baffled by your rambling and scrambling. Keep it up. I like the
entertainment!

LMAO. Another opportunity to refute my statements passes with not so
much as a poor attempt to answer them. More proof for anyone hoping
you'd come up with something.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Too bad this lie isn't any better than your last one.
As
> > > > everyone
> > > > > else knows (and Robbie should too), any single level in a
> > > > progression
> > > > > is equivalent to any session played without a

progression.

> So,
> > > > let's
> > > > > take a look at Rob's results. He claims to have won 23/31
at
> > $25
> > > > and
> > > > > 7/8 at $100 ... for a total of 30/39 wins. He also claims
to
> > have
> > > > > had, at most, 31 losses at the $10 level. I believe Rob

is

> now
> > a
> > > > 259
> > > > > total tries.
> > > > > > With all your running around it appears you're so lost

in

a
> > > > myriad
> > > > > of facts on my site that even the geek of the year has
> trouble
> > > > > following them. I've played $100 a grand total of 3

times.

> > Sorry
> > > > (not
> > > > > really!) you feel so bad again!
> > > > >
> > > > > I 'm glad you finally admitted lying previously when you
> stated
> > > 10%
> > > > > of the time you used 6 levels. Now, on to the next lie.
> > > >
> > > > Never said that. You did. I can't even count your
> > > misrepresentations
> > > > and lies.
> > >
> > > Chalk up another lie ...
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/2843
> >
> > I knew it! You're lying yet again! I was curious as to how that
> could
> > have been true, and once again here's proof that you made it

up.

As
> I
> > was babysitting you thru my play strategy's groundrules so you
> could
> > run your now-stupid sims with as much educated probability as
> > possible, I ASKED A QUESTION, and get ready--here it is,

directly

> > from post #2843!: "Also, is it possible to run 10% of the
sessions
> at
> > 6 levels?"
>
> You also asked several other questions. Like whether I could
simulate your special plays. Are you now saying you really don't

use

special plays?

So now you're assuming everything--the number one culprit of geeks
and their theories. Both questions are what-ifs if you really
understand trial & error.

You forget, the purpose was to evaluate your strategy. Each change
was an attempt to zero in on a correct simulation. Except, it
appears, for the 10% value. The important message for anyone reading
is why Rob ask about something he doesn't do? Could it be he wanted
some basis for future lies?

I've played 3 sessions at level 6, so I was
interested in what you'd come up with at about 25 for my own
curiosity. You are the picture of inaccuracy, and now I see

questions

confuse you so.

Interestingly, you never mentioned that little fact. So, as I was
providing results based on 10% of the sessions at 6 levels you let
them slide. I'll let others judge what that means.

>
> > And at least 4 times around that post and at least twice
> > in this thread, I've told you $100 (LEVEL 6) was actually

played

3
> > times! What a dufus!!
>
> That reminds me. I once stated that Robbie played a 5 level
> progression and he called me a liar and stated it was 6 levels.
Now,
> he states he's only played 6 levels 3 times (1%). Hmmmmmmm.

Well you are a liar when you state I play a 5-level progression!

That

implies I play 5 levels every time I play--which is as usual, 100%
wrong. It is a 6-level strategy, and it is not necessary to go up

ANY

level if the win goal (or even loss goal at times) is met at a

lower

level--even at the first level. Duh!

No, it requires that you bring along $57,500. Without that you
couldn't play 6 levels. But, more importantly, it begs the question
of why you would react so strongly to a statement, that even you
admit, applies 99% of the time. For example, I can bowl right or left
handed. However, I bowl right handed almost all the time. If anyone
asked me I wouldn't say I bowled with both hands because that would
be misleading at best.

>
> > And you were told the basis of my input was
> > what was assumed would be the case at the strategy's inception
and
> > wasn't reality. So after you finish crying over another

letdown,

> let
> > me hear your excuse for running head-first into that same wall
this
> > time! And I though geeks worked only with correct figures.....
>
> ROTFLMAO.

I'd be laughing instead of crying here too if i were you. Whatever

it

takes to make you feel better after looking so stupid!

30>22, what more is there.

>
> > > LMAO. To lose a session at $25 you had to lose at $10. It's

as

> easy as that. The numbers don't lie.
> >
> > And to lose for the 12th time at hand #16 means you wouldn've

had

> to
> > lose 11 times before it. You gonna count those as 11 session
losses
> > just as you would count each denominational loss within the
> strategy
> > until the goal is hit, a loss? How stupid. Are you THAT

desperate

> to
> > come up with a variation of strategy to fit in that geek head?
>
> More scrambling. Everyone can see the obvious. 30>22.

You avoided the question again....hmmmmm--what could THAT mean.....

No, I avoided responding to your rambles. When you can explain how
you've only lost 22 times at level 4 and have reached level 5 30
times then we'll get somewhere.

>
> >
> > > > Robbie can't lie well
> > > > > enough to keep his con going. (here's the numbers ... Rob
> just
> > > said
> > > > > he's played 30 times at the $25 level (22-8). But, he's
also
> > > > claimed
> > > > > only 22 losses at the $10 level. How can he get to the

$25

> > level
> > > 30
> > > > > times with only 22 losses at the $10 level? Answer: he's
> lying.)
> > > >
> > > > More make believe. I thought you just said a loss at ANY
level
> is
> > a loss---so how come a win at any level (cashout) can't be a
win??
> >
> > > It can.
> >
> > Anything 'can be' if that's what you want it to be so you don't
> > continue to look like an idiot here. The facts is, you are
claiming
> > my strategy isn't what it is, and that only firmly implants the
> Dunce
> > Cap on your head even more permanently.
>
> Yes, I certainly am claiming your "strategy isn't what it is".
Thanks for proving it to everyone.

Oh gee thanks! So now I can claim, according to YOUR rules that any
cash out should count as a win, that my record is more like 478-

31!!

You're a freakin' GENIUS!!! A stupid geek (especially here)....but

a

genius!

ROTFLMAO. Isn't it fun watching Rob's con come tumbling down.

>
>> > > > you'll see my record is a combination of
> > > > ALL 5 strategies, and when I go to $25 it's with 2 and more
> > > recently since $25 was added to Multi-Play, 3 other

strategies.

> > It's a miracle that you can put your shoes on each day without

my

> > directing you how to.
> >
> > > Seems like a lot of words and yet no evidence to refute my
> > > statements. The con has been exposed.
> >
> > Your 'statements' had no facts, and by your own admission of

not

> > having read my strategies, the only thing left to refute after
> > proving how you're a true moron is that you can put both shoes

on

> > each day without help!
>
> Now he's back to claiming I haven't been to his site. You can't
stick with a position for one minute.

I'm claiming that? Are you blind again?? In what way does saying

that

help build your waning self-confidence here?

It demonstrates how hard you're trying to stay away from the real
issue. 30>22.

>
> > > > The first issue you need to clear up with yourself is envy
over
> > my overall nearly 90% win ratio! Yes, that's what it is. You

also

> > need to purge your use of 'impossible' when it comes to my
> strategies.
> > >
> > > Too late. We've already seen absolute proof of your lies.

It's

a
> > > little late to start whining.
> >
> > It's actually very enjoyable watching you step in it every time
you
> > attempt to get out of the spot you're in. It couldn't happen to

a

> > better gut either!
>
> 30>22.

Good job, Einstein! 227>31!

That it is. Finally, a fact from little Robbie. Let me mark my
calendar.

>
> >
> > > > > > I believe if you (and me) stop laughing at all your mis-
> > > > information about how I play and what I've accomplished,

you

> > might be able to do a worthwhile analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Already done. Complete proof that you are lying.
> > > >
> > > > And eliminate the word 'denial' from your vocabulary.
> > >
> > > I think those of who know that 30>22 can easily see who's in
> denial.

Where's the denial? 227>31 too!

No denial here. It is a fact.

> >
> > The typical nebulous statement of any weakened debater. You're
> > argument (actually, lie) has been diffused in front of your

eyes,

> and
> > you're sore about it too. May I offer up a box of tissues?
>
> 30>22. What more do I need to say? Absolute PROOF of Rob's lies.

Make that a large for little dicky please....

Maybe what you need is to take a moment to look at the extremes you
go to each and every post. You lie and you bully. For what? Simply to
protect your con. You should realize by now that this has become an
addiction with you. You are right back to 1996 with an old problem in
a new form. It's called living a lie. It's too bad you got sucked
into it. You probably could have been just as successful by pointing
out some of the truths about AP gambling that don't get much
publicity. Not everyone will win as the bell curve promises, some
with addictive personalities will become addicted, some will be too
lazy to succeed, etc.

>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Re: The Secret Behind vpFREE
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > Anyone can regularly dump other funds into their

account

> for
> > > > > whatever reason they choose to. For future purposes so

you

> > don't embarrass yourself again, when you say you can 'prove'

you

> have
> > won, make sure you actually can do that without scrambling

around

> at
> > the 11th hour making up excuses and trying to save face by

having

> > others 'trust' you.
> > > > > > Here's what I will always require for absolute proof:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Trackable bank withdrawals to play with, or other
> > verifiable
> > > > > methods of where and how you obtained the cash. The IRS

doe

> not
> > > > accept "I had the cash in the house" and I don't either.
> > > >
> > > > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> > > >
> > > > OK. You can prove that the money you're playing with TODAY
came
> > out
> > > > of X withdrawal, and what you claimed to have won TODAY is

in

Y
> > > > deposit.
> > >
> > > That's not the way I do it. Over the last winter you will see
ONE
> > > withdrawl when I got to LV. You will see several deposits

along

> the
> > > way. Since I deal in smaller denoms I have no reason to run

to

> the
> > > bank every day.
> >
> > I understand that. That's exactly the resson for
accurate/truthful
> > and detailed casino records.
>
> I have more details then you would ever want.

You've shown no details and only basic stuff. You don't have what

it

···

takes to prove your underware are clean let alone you win at
anything, in fact, you prove you are a loser here on a daily basis--

-

both at the casinos and in life!

I stated a fact, Rob babbles. Where have we seen this before?

>
> >
> > > > > > 2. Contemporaneous gambling records of each casino

visit.

> If
> > > you have been audited for the period and the IRS accepts this
> > record as complete and accurate, we're in business. If not, you
> must
> > come up with another method to prove the money said won

gambling

> was
> > in fact won playing video poker.
> > > >
> > > > > These are pretty much worthless since they can be built

to

> say
> > > > > anything you want them to say. That said, I have 'em.
> > > >
> > > > As a vp player who files as a professional gambler, I am
> inclined
> > > to look the other way when someone says something like that.
You
> > > > probably haven't yet been audited (I can do something about
> that
> > > too) but if you say they are worthless because you lie about
them
> > or manipulate them, then I have to believe you and you'll have

to

> > come up with another method of proving that you won the

deposited

> > money playing vp.
> >
> > > They are worthless because they are simply a written record
where
> > > anyone could lie. You should also note that you and IRS are
> looking
> > > for the exact opposite claims. You think I claim to many wins
> while
> > > the IRS is looking for unreported wins.
> >
> > Normal, truthful and respectable people DON'T lie on their
income.
>
> And, that has nothing to do with what I stated. I simply stated
> anyone "could" lie. You know, a FACT.

So what's that supposed to mean--you DON'T lie? HAHAHA! Then why
bring it up?? Caught again.....

Once again, you disappoint. You brought it up. I just mentioned it
was worthless.

>
> > You win $45 today then you have to report it. If you're trying

to

> > sell me that you won the money playing video poker then it

would

> also
> > have to be reported as income to the IRS.
>
> Already done.

But you've also stated you don't keep contemporaneous records.

No, I didn't. I stated these records were meaningless and then I
said "I have 'em". You are showing significant memory problems
lately. Have you been checked for Alzheimers?

First
this then that. I'd say you're running on empty and are struggling

to

get a refill.

I hear they have some nice homes in the Phoenix area for demented con
men. Check into it.

>
> > If you don't, then I'd have
> > no official choice but to take it as you did not win as you
claimed
> > to have done.
>
> Like I said, already done and offered to you as proof of my
winnings.

All you've repeatedly done is submit excuse after excuse as to why
what I require as proof isn't necessary, and the limited records

and

statements you DO have are sufficient. Typical backtracking and
escaping thru one of your loopholes that you depend upon whenever
facing me.

Yawn. I think Rob has looked foolish enough. I'll let the retarded
guy off the hook this time.

>
> >
> > > > > > 3. Re-deposits exactly correlating to the time & amount
> > claimed won or lost.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time is meaningless. The only thing that matters is for

all

> the
> > > > cash deposits to match said winnings.
> > > >
> > > > THAT's what's meaningless. Where'd you really get the

money?

> your
> > > > portfolio isn't absolute in that respect and given that you
> have
> > no qualms about lying to the IRS about your play, you'd

certainly

> lie
> > > to me about it.
> > >
> > > Actually, my portfolio is almost absolute. However, I can see
> this
> > > point. I brought up the possibility of unreported income in

the

> > past with your claims so it is certainly an issue.
> >
> > The 'possibility' is always there---but not with me.
>
> Of course not ... Rob would never lie ... wink, wink ... 30>22.

Your crutch again.... But you're right--I NEVER lie.

ROTFLMAO.

>
> > You don't file
> > as a professional gambler and expect to 'get away' with
unreported
> > income. I learned on my first gambling audit in 1999 that if

you

> only
> > report the W2G wins and expect them to believe you never won

less

> > than $1200 in any visit, they'll get you.
>
> Not likely for .25/.50 denoms. I can see the point for larger
denoms.
>
> > they'll also get you for
> > not showing a withdrawal within a reasonable amount of time of
your
> > casino visits--
>
> Again, I think the denom makes all the difference here. Not to
> mention my exact records of every casinos visit.

They and I don't care about what denominations are played. Not one
bit. The records have to be there or tehy'll make a claim and so

will

I.

Sorry demented one, but the IRS does not require we stop at a bank
and withdraw a stake or deposit winning each and every time. Have you
lost it entirely?

>
> > so your system of a single withdrawal is gonna bite
> > you down the road. They'll just add in a projected 'win' amount
and
> > add it to your income based on your average track record, and
you'd
> > have no way to dispute it without back-up documentation.
>
> Not a problem.
>
> > That's why
> > misscrap is worried. She's never told the right ways to do

things

> > because she gets her info from the Queen, who is always looking
for
> > more gambling cash.
>
> Lie. Having records of every casino visit is exactly what Jean
> promotes.

The only things Jean promotes is problem gambling, addiction to

slot

club card use, all the junk she sells, living in sin with old men

who

supposedly will leave women with healthy life insurance policies
after they run the guys into the ground, going thru garbage cans
for "life's tiny treasures", and playing for the points instead of
for the money. Oh, and moving to Lv just to be closer to the
machines. No wonder you believe what this lady says.

I love it when Rob demonstrates his jealousy.

>
> >
> > > > > > 4. Bank statements showing any and all deposits made
> > throughout the period in question, and a description of each.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's all there in the bank's transaction history ONLINE.
> > > >
> > > > Including descriptions? No. You have to prove what they're
for.
> > >
> > > The bank deposits only indicates CASH.
> >
> > Then how can that identify every deposit?
>
> All bank transactions are dated. I though everyone knew that.

The key word is "IDENTIFY".....

I think Rob's brain is in a loop.

>
> >
> > > > > > 5. Year-ending 1040 review. W2G's are meaningless

because

> we
> > > all win a lot more than W2G's show.
> > > > >
> > > > > All there. So, you got that $10K?
> > > >
> > > > You really looked a lot better on this before you started
> > > scrambling around trying to make up things to support your
false
> > reporting here.
> > >
> > > Is that false wins or losses? You have stated both ...
> >
> > It's turned into false 'everything' until you factualize
SOMETHING.
>
> I guess Robbie doesn't like the facts ...

False 'facts' might hold water with a make-believe artist, but here
in the real world you need to tighten up your strings a little more
by kust a tad.....

Nope, like I said, I have records for all my gambling. Just what the
IRS wants. And, just as clearly, what you don't want to see.

>
> > >
> > > > Just as in almost everything else you get involved in here,
the
> > > more you release information the worse you look. (REASON #1

as

to
> > why the geeks are shut down and removed by the Program Manager
when
> > the real discussions begin). At first you had 60% credibility.
Now
> > it's 40%. I require 100%. Keep trying.
> > >
> > > I think this has gone far enough. I did all this so everyone
> could
> > > see exactly WHY it is impossible for Robbie to ever PROVE his
> > claimed results. The issue of outside cash will always exist

and

> > there is NO way to prove that anyone's claims are valid. For
> example,
> > Robbie could restore old cars and sell them for cash. Use that
> money
> > to supplement his claims and no one would be the wiser. It was
very
> > satisfying to see Robbie spell out exactly why his own claims

are

> > worthless.
> >
> > 100% false. As a professional gambler I keep a GAMBLING ONLY
> account
> > that has all transactions only for my gambling trips, posted

and

> > dated, and my casino and IRS records all correlate EXACTLY to

my

> bank
> > account statement for gaming.
>
> So, you're saying it would not be possible to take cash gained

from

> selling old cars or whatever and supplement your wins? You know,
> basic money laundering 101. LMAO.

Selling 'old cars' requires a transaction record for tax purposes,
and nothing goes onto a gaming record other than gaming activity.

I didn't say it did, I just said it could. Why are you so defensive?

You're promoting illegal activity and false-reporting. If that's

how

you want to operate, you'll never be a neighbor of mine.

Mentioning that you could be supplementing your income is
NOT "illegal activity and false-reporting". Is is simply a valid
possibility. Your over-reaction here is much more telling.

>
> > There's nothing else in there except
> > some withdrawals of the profits and interest for buying things
when
> > there's no trips involved. I've even had the 5-year audit to
verify
> > everything -- all of which is why I put up a huge amount

against

> the
> > fool radio jock. Our normal joint account is used only for

bills

> and
> > expenses, never is cash taken out, and the deposits are all

from

my
> > wife's work--except when we bought the house recently when I

made

> > deposits from my brokerage account. Everything's very precise,
> clear,
> > and traceable. And anyone would lose to me if they bet me on my
> > proof. And when I offerred to pay for the Nevada Arbitrator

who's

> > decision would be final and binding, that's like a final nail

in

> the
> > coffin of any fool that would bet me. That's why the jock

backed

> off
> > and that's why you did.
>
> ROTFLMAO. I guess my records aren't believeable because I might
> supplement them from other sources, but Rob's records are
believeable
> because ... what?, He said so? ... Don't you remember, little
man ...
> 30>22.

When you make things up you really try to believe them. that's

clear.

You've said you twist the law and you want me to believe you don't
LIE? Try fooling someone else.

RIV. How sweet it is ...

> > > Making believe your frenzied/rabid/compulsive
> > > casino play is all done as a nice, respectable, non-gambling,
> > > everyday "AP" is all part of the typical cover-up of

seriously

> > > inflicted problem gamblers on out-of-control paths.
> >
> > And, just how would you know? Simply because that's what you

did?

> > Now, there's a real good methodology ... assume everyone else

has

> the poor gambling habits you've admitted to. Are you really this
> stupid?
>
> How about listening to experience for a change instead of coming
> apart at the seams and virtually admitting that you know I'm

right?

Experience is fine ... if it applies. Your experiences simply don't
apply to me.

Denial. The #1 trait of an addicted gambler. It's always 'the other
guys', isn't it.

However, they still apply to you. I think it's pretty

obvious that you've simply altered your addiction. You are now
addicted to your CON. You deny each and every FACT that

demonstrates

unequivocally that your system is of no value. You even go to the
extremes of claiming machines cycles, just like our addicted

gambler

in the book ... not to mention your claims that NGC regulations are
not enforced. It's obvious to everyone else, it's obvious to your
inner voice ... look in the mirror.

On and on and on with no particular place to go. I'd say you've been
wounded more than I realized you would by the book. And it may just
be the piece of magic that'll get your life back in one piece yet.

> >
> > > You fit EVERY
> > > alert that GA puts out about what constitutes the disease,

and

> > denial-
> > > -which is one of your most glaring traits--is like a drug on
top
> of it all. You've got it baaaddddd.....
> >
> > OK. Name a couple that you haven't made up in your own mind so
you
> > can continue your con. I went over the 20 GA questions and only
> > answered yes partially to two of them. It's so obvious why you
keep
> > pushing the addiction button. THE CON.
>
> DENIAL! Your #1 nemisis.
> Moving to be closer to the machines.
> Daily play that interrupts what COULD be a normal life.
> Inability to live a single day without either playing vp, talking
> about it, having anxiety over it, or all three.

Like I said ... 3 weeks and counting. How long since you gambled?

Denial. The number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

>
> Should I continue?

Describing your addiction? ... feel free. I have no problem
discussing addiction since I'm clearly not addicted.

Denial. the number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

> > > > > ALL AP's are addicts, and the degree to which they are
> > inflicted
> > > > with the disease is defined by how often they go to

casinos.

> > > >
> > > > Sorry to come in with the facts again.
> > >
> > > Translation: "I can't help myself spout more DENIAL!
> >
> > You do remember that the amount of time spent in a casino is

not

> > relevant as far as GA is concerned? Of course you do, I already
> > pointed that out long ago.
>
> Your 'spin' on that would include the blind. Irrelevant. The more
> time one who GAMBLES is in a casino determines their degree of
> degeneracy.

This is known as illogic.

Denial. the number 1 trait of addicted gamblers.

If I remember right it is one of the signs

of mental retardation. It's the inability to understand the fact

that

(A imples B) does not mean (B implies A). For example, Rob uses the
facts that addicts gamble a lot to conclude that a lot of gambling
implies one is an addict. Let's look at another example ...
alcoholics drink almost every day. So, using Rob's logic, if you
drink every day you are an alcoholic. Another example ... all cars
have wheels clearly doesn't mean all things with wheels are cars.

Rambling on aimlessly to make one feel better about their disease.
The number 2 trait of all addicted gamblers.

> > > and on but I think everyone else gets the picture.
> > >
> > > There's that incredible sense of guilt being tranformed into
> denial
> > > again as we speak.
> >
> > Yes, we can see that in your answer. You ALREADY know the TRUTH
and
> > yet you come back and lie. Don't you have the faintest clue

that

> > these obvious lies make you look completely foolish?
>
> Every time you claim I'm 'lying' it's tainted by the ugly black
cloud
> of denial and guilt. And deceit.

LMAO. Now that you've concluded you are an alcoholic, when are you
going to AA?

Changing the subject when clearly caught up in the truth of the
matter. The number 3 trait of all addicted gamblers.

> >
> > > Comparing a gambling problem, which you have a
> > > black belt in, to people doing normal, productive things is
> simply
> > an
> > > addict's way of creating a net of false security around their
> sick
> > > activity.
> >
> > Once again you start off with an asserted lie, you must really
love
> > being the villiage idiot.
>
> Undeniable fact: Anyone held in the grips of addiction will call
any
> person who reveals the addict's problem, a liar.

Is that why you go to such depths to protect your con? Of course it
is. You will call anyone who attacks your con just about anything

to avoid discussing YOUR addiction.

I write publicly about my addiction all the time in the paper and
talk about it on the radio. You're not there yet--you hide and make
believe it isn't there because your mouth says so. Certainly, an
effect of the overall disease.

It's well known that addiction has genetic roots. Current research
indicates that low levels of norepinephrine are found in those with
addictive tendencies. Since we already know you have these
tendencies, guess what? Now do your understand your internal voice?

Reachiung for the far ends of the earth in order to talk onself out
of an addiction. the number 4 trait of all addicted gamblers.

> > > > What part of the word "good" didn't you understand? Your
> > addiction
> > > > promoting ideas should place you in the Hall of Shame.
> > >
> > > "good count": a couple of hands better than trips. I don't

call

> > > that 'good' because I don't play for them.
> >
> > "good" and "hot" are just two different words of the same idea.
You
> > have your ideas and he had his. They are both meaningless and
> promote addiction.
>
> Then you didn't get what the author was saying. I suspect that's
part
> of your program of denial.

I understood exactly what the author was saying. Now, the real
question is whether you'll see how it relates to you.

You deliberately misinterpreted in order to cover your own guilt over
your addiction. The number 5 trait of all addicted gamblers.

> > > > > And I agree--his fantasy didn't and doesn't exist. The
> > > > > programmed hot & cold cycles of today's machines

absolutely

> do.
> > > My record is a testament to that undeniable fact.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. Your record is about as meaningful as someone who

wins

> the
> > > > lottery. Not to mention, your approach is down to a 1 in

1000

> > > chance of success and we already know you've been lying with
the
> > > 30>22 factoid.
> > >
> > > In a few months you'll have talked yourself into thinking my
> > chances
> > > of success have been 1 in a million.
> >
> > Since you keep changing your story, that could easily be the
case.
> > Sooner or later you'll have to admit that you lied (since

30>22).

> > When you admit the truth, I will once again need to change the
> > simulator.
>
> If you would have read my strategiy with comprehension instead of
> making things up about it as you go along just so the sim results
> wouldn't look so great to you, you wouldn't continue to look so
weak
> when you say I lied or that nonsense about 30-22.

Just the facts, as usual.

> Hiding behind time
> and error while generalizing about their spin in the future is
> exactly what denyers and liars always do.
> > > A geek will do whatever's
> > > necessary to mitigate his sufferring. It's all because it's
> eating
> > > away at you inside and you just don't want it to be real.
> > Eventually,
> > > it'll bother you soooo much that you'll make believe I've

never

> > > existed either.
> >
> > LMAO. It's really been "eating" at me to see your lies exposed
for
> > everyone to see.
>
> Denial: the #1 trait of problem gamblers.

Or ... as in this case ... someone addicted to a con. You know it's
very possible that Rob started out believing that his progression

and

special plays made a difference. Since he failed at AP he probably
thought it was flawed. When he had some luck, he got on a crusade,
then got to write for GT, got a few others to side with him, felt
important. This got the norepinephrine levels elevated and the
addiction was born.

I'm glad you notice part of how I became the famous person you've
always wanted to be but not only were too dorky to succeed---you have
no friends to support your quest. Truly, a sad scenario.

> > > You know, you could have just said "LIAR" again instead of
going
> > thru
> > > all those nervously-tainted words. You just don't like the
facts
> > that
> > > hurt, but there they are right there in front of you. And

since

> > > DENIAL is your most prolific trait, have at it!
> >
> > Facts make Robbie babble.
>
> CNBC had the facts. You've got denial. Any questions?

Sure, what did they base the number on? Your IQ?

They looked at your life and the wife of your poor wife's (whatever's
left to it that's worth anything any more).

> > > > > > APers already know that there is no system, only sound,
> > > > > > mathematically proven strategies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another ramble of how it's the 'other guy' and not you.
> Another
> > > > > collection of feel-good nonsense that'll allow you to

sleep

> > with
> > > > your eyes closed for a change. Nothing holds water with you
> > unless
> > > you create the theory.
> > > >
> > > > Did I mention babbling? Rob, if you didn't want me read the
> book
> > > and analyze it, maybe you shouldn't have sent it to me.
> > >
> > > ?? The book was sent to you to help you realize both the
> nightmare
> > > you live as well as the fact that it can be beaten. You keep
> > blaming
> > > all woes on 'other people' -
> >
> > Name a single woe I have blamed on anyone. Please provide
> references. PS. I do blame AP for adding to my taxable income.
>
> #1 thru #1,000,000: Blamed the wife for your gambling problem.

And ... where is that reference? Nowhere to be found. Just like all
your lies. You know, those lies you keep inventing to hide your
addiction to your CON.

Everywhere in freevpfree. you stated it, not me. Now live with it,
Me. & Mrs. Addict.

> > LMAO. In one paragraph Robbie says I deny addiction, then later
he
> > says I blame it on my wife. Which one is it little man? Pick

one

> lie
> > and try to stick to it for a change. These constant

descrepancies

> in
> > Rob's statement are vivid examples that he has no clues about

me.

> He
> > simply keeps bringing this up so he doesn't have to answer
> questions
> > like ... 30>22.
>
> Just like all problem gamblers, you chase away the truth and view
it
> as an attack in any form. When you claim gambling is a hobby, you
> deny addiction....the same addiction you blame your wife for
causing
> it. You see, the truth is simple, regardless of the weasel-word
spin
> you put on the words.

RIV is in form today. How sweet it is ...

you asked for it and you got it. Now live with it.

> > > > > Admit it for a change--you had sweaty palms from the

moment

> you
> > > > > reitred, thinking about when you could move to LV to be
> closer
> > to
> > > > the machines.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. When faced to total humiliation, Rob resorts to his
> > asserted
> > > > lies. If what you said were true then I had sweating palms
for
> 6
> > > > years and did nothing about it. You're looking more foolish
> every
> > > > time to try to save face.
> > >
> > > Nobody does 'anything about it' immediately after retiring.
> >
> > Why not? The guy in the book moved without retiring. He left

one

> job
> > and got another one in LV.
>
> In your usual effort to use meaningless analogies to cover for

your

> excuses and problem, you predictably became lost here
> again. "Immediately after retiring" has nothing to do with the
author
> and everything to do with you.

You stated "nobody" ... I gave you an example where you were wrong.
Even a cave man could understand this.

'Everything to do with you'. Read it again and weep.

> > > For all
> > > we know, you and the wife had on-going viscious fights over
> whether
> > > to move or not....and as usual, you got your way.
> >
> > LMAO. Robbie turns a question into an asserted lie. You really
must
> > enjoy looking foolish, why else would you do it so often.
>
> You have the traits of ugliness in everything you do, little

dicky.

I
> simply bring them to surface.

Does anyone else detect a little frustration here? Pretty obvious
that Rob's position has fallen completely apart. How sweet it is ...

What number trait was avoiding the issue?? Number 2?

> >
> > > Now you know why
> > > she wanted to stay. I suspect the 6-month thing was a
compromise
> > > where cooler heads prevailed. But it won't last - you know

that.

> >
> > More lies ... we're still waiting for you explain 30>22.
>
> Every time you mention the 30-22 thing---which I've lost tract of
> what it means anyway---it shows how uncomfortable you are with

the

> baloney your writing. It's like some sort of crutch, and it
basically
> confirms I'm spot-on right about you.

30>22 ... PROOF of your lies. Let's watch Robbie's frustration

build

some more ...

Let's see the proof of whatever 30>22 is!>

> >
> > > The
> > > addiction has now diseased both of you and it won't be long
> before
> > > the final and full move is made.
> >
> > Yeah, I'm thinking Carefree, AZ. I hear it's a good place
> for "loser"
> > watching.
>
> Oops! Being a little testy and jealous in the same sentence are

we??

Nope, a little humor that went right by you. Could it be the
frustration?

Nah, it was jealousy and you know it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Do you believe you're gonna stay in Minn. for 6 months
> > > > > after getting a taste of the craving you fix in the

casinos

> > every
> > > > > day? HA!
> > >
> > > > Already done it twice. 2004 and 2005. Any more idiotic
attempts
> > to
> > > > save face up your sleeve?
> > >
> > > It's not my face I'm trying to save here, little dicky.
> > Minimalizing
> > > the obvious only digs your hole deeper over time.
> >
> > Once again, the facts leave Robbie with nothing but the

babbles.

> You
> > just said I couldn't stay away for 6 months and I demonstrated
you
> > were wrong. You sure are looking foolish today. Good job.
>
> After I demonstrated how you deny and lie at every turn, the hole
> you're digging just keeps getting deeper.

We're still waiting for that reference. Just one ...

Avoiding the issue--was that #2?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > It's like you've been cursed by some sort of voodoo---

just

> > > > > like Jean Scott was. You're dissecting this very telling
book
> > > about people who move to LV to be closer to the machines,

along

> > with
> > > your rabid flow of denial after denial only puts a tougher
piece
> of
> > > meat on your plate.
> > > >
> > > > Did I mention babbling?
> > >
> > > I guess I'd turn the other cheek to the truth about those who
> move
> > to
> > > LV too.....if I were the infected fool.
> >
> > So, EVERYONE who moves to LV is an addict ... LMAO. How does

that

> > clown suit fit?
>
> What irks you is that we're just talking about YOU & the Queen
right
> now. Diluting the issue only makes you look all the more guilty

of

> degenerate behavior.

I didn't dilute anything ... you said "move to LV", not me. LMAO.

Denial and lying all in one sentence again! Loving every minute of
it!!

> > > > >
> > > > > The part that relates to you is simple: You make believe
you
> > have
> > > > > other interests in life, yet you are so controlled by the
> > thought
> > > > of video poker that there really is nothing else in your

life

> > that
> > > > comes close to measuring up to that grab.
> > > >
> > > > This insert before my description of what I do shows how

much

> > > little Robbie is scrambling. He already knows I don't fit the
> > > description but wanted to throw in his typical asserted lies
> > anyway.
> > > Just makes you look foolish, little man. Thanks.
> > >
> > > All your famous 'insert' tells is the interests you've let go
of
> > > because of your gambling problem.
> >
> > More lies. You must love being the villiage idiot.
>
> then read on.....you'll be enlightened and surprised at how easy
you
> are to dissect.

I suspect RIV may be preparing another salvo.

> >
> > > Going to the gym once in 3 months
> > > would EASILY allow a person in such denial and slave to the
> > machines
> > > such as you to say "the gym is my on-going interest".
> >
> > Is that what you did? Interesting. I'm sure glad I'm much

smarter

> > than you.
>
> Need I say any more? You do so well at digging your own grave.

You've said more than enough to convince us all that you will do
anything to protect your con and your addiction to it.

Hmmm....Seems you're getting desperate with your cover-up again. Now,
my addiction is to a 'con'!! Oh, how you make my day with your idiocy
and scrambling around at my every command.....

> > > The CON is between you and yourself if you haven't seen it

yet.

> The
> > > rest of us can, CON.
> >
> > LMAO. This entire post of yours is almost constant babbling.

You

> have
> > not refuted a single thing I posted. Instead you continue

making

> > yourself look idiotic by supporting addictive behavior and
stating
> > outright lies. I've got you right where I want you and I know
> you'll
> > come back with the same old drivel again. You have no other
choice.
> > How sweet it is ...
>
> 95% of what you're being accused of here by reason of degeneracy
over
> gambling is DENIED. Is that a surprise?? HAHA!

Good going RIV, you've nailed Rob again. His suppport of addictive
behaviors simply to continue his con is degenerate. His lies to
protect the con are simply denials of the truth. I couldn't have

said

it better myself.

Ramble and scramble. How well you do that dance!

> You won't say it here,
> but i know you are second-guessing your move to LV. Not only

doies

it
> contribute to your gambling problem, the city is a cesspool and
> getting worse.

100% wrong. While I may not stay in LV forever, the move has

already

been a complete success. Significant appreciation of my home,
gambling success, playing golf all year long ... how sweet it

is ...

Oh I already know you'll be out of LV before long. The losing will
make you say 'uncle' soon enough. And houses have appreciated far
more in other parts of the country....like over here bozo. Go ahead--
paing a pretty picture while you can. But don't be seen crying in
your beer when the floor falls out of your nightmare!

> > > > > You just don't get it. Anyone who on one
> > > > > hand says they have it all under control, then on the

other

> > brags
> > > > > about hitting 26 royals in 5 or 6 months,
> > > >
> > > > Just the facts, as usual. What you call bragging was a

simple

> > > > response to your statements that I always lost.
> > >
> > > 'Just the facts' by little dicky is right! "It's 'all under
> > control'
> > > yet I can't help myself by admitting I was in casinos for a
HUGE
> > > amount of time as I hit those 26 royals in a short period of
time.
> >
> > Just the facts, as usual. We already covered the fact

that "time"

> has
> > nothing to do with addiction.
>
> Yup, in your own mind it doesn't. What an idiot....and that's

kind.

LMAO. I don't think there's any cure for mental retardation but you
could check.

I have no interest in checking up on your problems.

> > > And just like Dancer's baloney claims, my '6 month run'

should

> not
> > be
> > > indicative of such compulsive play BEFORE or SINCE that 6-

month

> > > period, nosiree! I have it ALL under control now, yes I do,

and

i
> > had
> > > it all under control before too! That 6 month period was

simply

> the
> > > period of fame that I chose to claim my prowess within!!"
> >
> > Once again Rob's jealousy of Dancer rears it's ugly head. Face
it,
> > little man, you will never be Bob Dancer. You're too stupid.
>
> Yup again! Avoid the real issue. But what choice do you have

other

> than to ignore the truth about what i said? Even if you discussed
it
> or refuted it with the usual denial, it would weaken your

position

> and, in fact, weaken your spirit of the ongoing lying you seem to
> survive with.
> > > > > then denies everything I
> > > > > say about the real AND ONLY reason you moved to LV,
> > > >
> > > > That's right. I deny your lies. Anything else?
> > >
> > > Why would anyone expect you to tell the truth about this?

After

> all
> > > your denials and lies on just about every other subject, you
> don't
> > > think you've laid out your legacy?
> >
> > I do believe I have accomplished exactly what I set out to
> > accomplish ... Proving Rob Singer is a LAF.
>
> Yup--avoid the issue again. I wonder why.....

> > > > > and then says "I
> > > > > only play 3 hours a day" in a failed effort to get any

live

> > body
> > > to believe that's supposed to be some sort of successful
> > > minimalization of a problem
> > > >
> > > > Just the facts, as usual. As for minimalization, I only
gamble
> 3
> > > > hours becuase that's all I WANT to gamble. If I wanted to
> gamble
> > 6
> > > > hours, then that is what I would do. Not much different

then

> your
> > > > working on old cars.
> > >
> > > There's that analogy of degenerate sickness to productive
> > activities
> > > again!
> >
> > I thought you'd like that one. Too bad for your con that it's
> another
> > simple truth.
> >
> > > When cornered with sense, come out denying and
> > > scrambling....with that ol' needy confidence-building spirit!
> >
> > The babbles go on and on ...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > ---and then as soon as you hit Minn. you run right back
> > > > > into the Indian casino and 'brag' about your winning
prowess
> > > there in some type of genuflection move
> > > >
> > > > If "running right back" is waiting a week then your
definition
> > may
> > > be a little different than everyone elses. Once again, my
> responses
> > > were to your claims that I always lose. I can't help it if

the

> > facts
> > > and your lies don't mesh.
> > >
> > > OK, which of you was sick for a week and held the addict

party

> > back?
> > > good thing though. It kept your losses down.
> >
> > And on and on ... Let's see I'm over 3 weeks since my last

casino

> > visit ... what about you?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > ---you RADIATE problems to the rest of us.
> > > >
> > > > Assert lie.
> > >
> > > Prove you don't.
> >
> > Talk about an impotent reply. Did I mention that you are

starting

> to
> > make all the other villiage idiots look smart?
>
> And, um....the proof is WHERE??

Simple, your constant use of illogic.

Supply proof....get it? Not how much I've made you cry.

> >
> > Yes FACTS. You know, like casino time NOT being a cause of
> addiction
> > whereas chasing non-existent "cycles" is. Yes FACTS.
>
> Here's some more education: Chasing cycles is dumb if you intend

to

> try it. Detecting your machine's cycle is intelligence

personified.

I
> have it, you don't. You never will. And your envious that I have
that
> over you too. Next.

LMAO. Clear addictive denial.

Clear confusion on your part. That response made no sense.

> >
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMAO. If you want your little book back send me your
> address.
> > > > Otherwise, I may have a few more comments.
> > >
> > > It's understandable that an addict wouldn't take a scolding

too

> > well.
> > > But if you can't see that all you did here was deny, run

around

> > > naked, and always say "it's not ME...it's THEM" when it came

to

> > > problem gamblers, then you're gonna need much more attention
for
> > your
> > > disorder. Keep the comments coming so i can continue to show
just
> > how
> > > deeply you're entrenched in the disease.
> >
> > This is soooooo funny. Rob obviously didn't think that a book

on

···

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

an
> > addict's life would make him look this bad. Get over it.
>
> Deny, avoid, and hand-off. Desperation at its height.