--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > Well golly gee, that certainly sounds like an all-day affair if
> there ever was one! And yup, Serenity sure sounds like an
appropriate movie for someone like you Dick. Fantasy, make-believe,
&
impossibilities-
> Isn't that pretty much the definition of MOST movies?
The movie I recently went to, Flight Plan, was capable of actually
happening. Are you thinking the scenario in Serenity is in the same
ballpark--at least on earth?
Serenity is based in the future. However, I don't think very many
people would find the movie very believable. Then again, that's not
usually the objective. If you hadn't caught on yet, the objective of
most movies is to entertain.
> > right up your alley! I'd say you did the day in the right order
> > though. You shopped BEFORE getting that comped meal and wasting
all
> > that time and money on the machines in that place YET AGAIN.
Good
> > thinking. I wish I had some of that.
>
> Where did I say I did any gambling? Nowhere. Are you ALWAYS wrong?
That's just it. Even when you don't say it, you do. Someone who
plays
as often and as long as you cannot simply walk in, eat dinner, then
walk out WITHOUT getting your fix at the machines. Ask Elliott.
Are you always wrong?
> > Um, read your offer to bet. Are you a true analyst or not?? You
> asked
> > for proof that the mathematicians EXIST, did you not? I told
you
> I'll
> > give you proof they exist today if they're still alive and/or
are
> > reachable because you don't want to believe they existed 9
years
> ago.
> There's no way to PROVE they are mathematicians without seeing
their proofs.
So you want proof not only that they exist (ed), but that they are
also mathematicians. Clarity is the only way.
Like I've said SEVERAL times already. The names/addresses/email ids
of the mathematicians and copies of their proofs.
> > If you want proof that my play strategy was developed in a
manner
> to
> > consistently win on ANY of the series of vp games that I say
they
> now
> > do, you should have said it that way in the first place and not
> made
> > an after-the-fact weasel stipulation so you could escape
another
> bet.
> > I have all the paperwork on my contribution to that event as
well
> as
> > their written analyses/advice, and it has nothing to do with
> whether
> > or not they now exist. When you get over discovering you're not
as
> > smart as you like to think you are, get back with me on it. And
be
> > clear this time.
>
> You could write any baloney, which you do quite often. The only
way
> to see if these so-called experts exist is to see their proofs.
Of
> course, this is exactly what I predicted at the end of my last
note. Don't you just hate it when I'm right all the time.
As stated above, what you need to do is learn how to say what you
mean.
I have several times.
Of course, you're not being an articulate writer has something
to do with that--and you might be able to pass off your nebulous
nonsense armed with your escape loopholes, to others--but with me
you're shananagans are caught with ease. Say what you mean, and
mean
what you say.
Ho hum. Your obvious weaseling is getting boring.
> > Wrong. Since I'm the important one here and you're a nobody (do
you get that yet?) I say when and where. P.S.--I like how you're
now
> calling the other fool the name 'Congo'. You're getting that one.
> It doesn't matter now, does it? You've already backed down, again.
The point you missed is that you got hit in the sweet spot and are
slow to react. The bet's on if you can state what you want without
all the baloney attached.
LMAO. weasel ... weasel .... weasel
> > I can get your juices flowing on that right now. The strategy
> > recognizes and the calculations prove out, MATHEMATICALLY, how
ONE
> > SESSION will have a very favorable chance of attaining the win
goal
> > of $2500 minimum (which you and your cohorts like to call "the
> small
> > wins").
>
> I've always said a progressive system favors more session wins
and
a
> few much larger losses. That's the nature of ALL progressive
systems. This is easily "calculated" and simple to understand. It's
the hook in your scam where you conviently forget to mention the
IMPACT of the large losses.
First, it'd be a 'hook in the scam' if I were taking people's money
from selling them strategy, or selling them that doesn't work
and/or
hasn't been proven to work in casinos.
It doesn't matter what you GAIN. The fact that you are promoting this
system means you are selling a scam.
You know why you're wrong
there. And you're still stupified by "the large losses". It's a
mystery why you don't recognize the impact of the more frequent
large
winners. Is it that hard to write?
No, it's just not a given with your system. If it were you would take
Cognos' bet on future results.
>
> Now, if only you promoted using your system on positive machines
ONLY
> then we could discuss the other impacts of using a progressive
> system. Of course, it's virtually impossible to find a 5 level
> progressive set of games that are all positive, isn't it?
Yes, which is why I went into the strategy's development knowing
I'd
have to work with MOSTLY machines at just under 100%.
And, therefore there was no way for you make a name for yourself
without constantly lieing.
If either the
numbers didn't work out up front OR my 12 trials at lower
denominations didn't prove to me it worked (12-0), I would have
instantly scrapped plans to use the strategy to play for profit
professionally.
Or, you could have actually contacted a mathematician who would have
told you the system could never turn a negative expectation game into
a positive one.
> And, it doesn't show how it can change a negative expectation
into
a
> positive one, does it? The "giant" wins are simply a part of the
> overall NEGATIVE expectation. All it means is that the rest of
the
> game pays back even less which improves the chances of having a
large
> loss. A five level progression on an even money bet will win 15
out
> of 16 times. That's almost 94% for the math challenged like
Robbie
> boy.
No, you're doing what you do best--assuming the giant wins are
meaningless. You're stuck, so you resort back to the escape clause
you always do--negative means loss and positive means win.
Nope. Those "giant" wins are already accounted for in the games
negative expectation. You'll need to come up with something that is
NOT accounted for in the games' expectation. PS. There aren't any.
> > The numbers proved that the big
> > win is much more probable again, in one session.
>
> It cannot show this. This is a lie. This is the heart of your
scam.
> There is no system that can improve the odds of hitting a big
hand.
> The odds are the same on every single hand that you play. This
has
> been proved many times over and none of your lies can change it.
Read it again, this time understanding it.
Oh, I understand it just fine. A lot more than you would like.
The big win is more
probable than the big loss.
Your using "big" all wrong here. The actual size of the win or loss
depends on the denom being played. Only relative size has any
meaning. That's why $2500 (or even $20000) isn't big compared to a
$57,500 loss.
And you're obviously wrong on the next
point too. I can easily improve my odds of hitting a big win by
only
going for royals on every hand.
At the cost of significantly larger losses and lowering the
expectation of the game even more. If you want to claim that is how
your system works have at it.
And when you boil that down to
reality, the special plays take that to the next level that you
think
does not exist.
It doesn't. You would have to demonstrate how they would change the
negative expectation. You can't since these wonderous special plays
only LOWER the overall expectation.
What you've think you've proven is what long-term
strategy theory has to say about my strategy, and it has nothing to
do with that at all. Drop the infinity hat and look at it as a
single
session, and you'll eliminate the knots in your stomach.
As I stated previously, it has nothing to do with infinity. you might
want to read ahead a little bit next time.
> > Unlike how you and
> > others would like to now plug this into some sort of long-term
> > analysis--which my play will NEVER attain because of the number
of sessions I'll play for the amount of time I do this--and how you
> > would instantly and illogically say that playing negative games
> will only yield a loser as well as the obvious and simple
opposite,
the true analysis remains a single session analysis because that's
how a short term strategy is played.
>
> It has nothing to do with short term or long term. It has
everything
> to do with analyzing a SINGLE hand and then extrapolating the
results
> to any number of hands you play. It does not care if the hands
are
> played in a single day or a 100 days (or a 100 single days). The
math
> is the same. You can't get away with the "long term" argument any
> more, monkey boy. The long term is not required to show your
system
> can NEVER change a negative expectation game into a positive one.
You're still lost & confused and will forever remain that way,
because if you EVER made the effort to understand this instead of
blocking your mind and repeating your long-term theory craziness,
then it would turn your statistic-laden, optimal-play neurosis
video
poker play upside down and inside out--causing a complete and
permanent tilt. Most people in your hopeless mode eventually come
to
me privately, and they're glad they did.
By not refuting a single thing I just said, you are making it obvious
to everyone that I am 100% correct. Using idiotic remarks
like "statistic-laden" when I never quoted a single statistic only
makes you look more the fool. If this were not bad enough, the
statistics that you hate so much are used in casinos EVERY single day.
> > Where you feel the urge (and you'll
> > erroneously say it's because that's how math operates, just to
feel
> > good for no known reason, without looking at the entire scope
of
> > what's on the table) to do some model into infinity or to call
upon
> > the law of large numbers as a defense, neither is of any value
> here.
> > A session is a session.
>
> And, as I just pointed out, a single hand is all this is
required.
I hope you realize how this latest baloney of yours has made it so
> obvious that your system is a scam.
All you pointed out was how little you know--which makes me look
all
the more reasonable to the knowledgeable player.
More monkey boy rhetoric with nothing to refute my factual
statements. How does it feel to look like a complete fool?
> > It is not a part of anything else. To say
> > what you do about them all being combined---about how a player
on
> one
> > side of the bell curve will eventually even out if playing all
> games
> > at 100%---means that current results are being influenced by
past
> > results, and that makes no sense.
>
> Did anyone hear me say that? Nope, future results are never
> influenced by past results. The hands are all independent. That's
> EXACTLY why I can say your system is a scam. What independent
means
> is that the overall expectation can be found by simply adding the
> expectations of the individual hands and dividing by the total
number
> of hands. So simple. Short term ... long term ... doesn't matter.
Now you're trying the doubletalk route.
No, it's call simple mathematics. You should try it sometime.
Are you trying to say the
bell curve example above WON'T mathematically even out?
No, I didn't say anything about the bell curve. I don't need to get
into that to prove your system is a scam.
And are you
disagreeing when Bob Dancer, et al, writes that "If I lose today
I'm
not worried, because with my strategy I KNOW I'll win eventually
win
and I'll be fine"?
If you are going to quote someone, please provide an exact reference.
Otherwise I can only assume this was made up and is, simply, another
one of your lies.
That easily means because there's a known losing
streak, there's also a known winning streak to come.
Nothing is "known" about the future.
That's a
dependence on influencing hands dicky, whether alone, in pairs, or
bunches.
There is no dependence. It would violate the law.
I'm always the one who's strategy always is played one hand
at a time, and that nothing is influenced by anything else. A
winning
hand is the result of good luck, and a losing hand is bad luck.
Simple and easy. The way short term strategy needs to be understood
in order to be consistently successful.
No, you're the one who advises people to play with a negative
expectation which will lead the vast majority of players who try your
system to dismal failure.
By the way, there is only one way anyone CAN play VP. One hand at a
time.
> > The entire analysis is based on a
> > single session probability model, which is how every single
player ever plays.
>
> Nope. My "entire analysis" is based on analyzing a single hand
and
> then having the ability to ADD.
Then that's why you aren't able to cope with or understand the
analysis of my play strategy.
Nope, that's why I can easily cope with your strategy. I can see it's
all smoke and mirrors just like any other Martingale-like system. All
you have to understand is good old simple arithmetic. I've explained
it to you so even a grade school child could understand. The ONLY
reasonable explanation for anyone doubting my statements is they are
a liar and a fraud.
And never will. Illogic at an early age
has a chance of correcting itself. But for you, not now.
PURE logic. Plain and simple as it gets.
> > I believe you've lost the real meaning of 'proof' in this
process. I'm proving something exists, not proving that something
doesn't.
> Oh, but that is the nature of mathematical proof. Finding a
single
> example of where an assertion fails is all it takes to be 100%
sure
> the assertion is false.
Like proving I've won has anything to do that. The assertion is
that
I won as I say I did. You're assuming I do prove that point, but
you
also want an escape based on a wild scenario of hundreds of useless
trips, unimagineable time wasting, illegally obtained funds, a life
of crime while not being caught, and the uncanny ability to tie it
all together in order that I'm able to make a published $640,000
bet
out of it with another public figure.
LIke I said before, it really isn't that difficult. The fact that you
try to make it sound difficult is cause to make one wonder ...
Totally unreasonable, and the
arbitrator wouldn't even read past the first sentence before ruling
in my favor.
Still trying to hold onto that baloney. EVERY math trained individual
would quickly agree that you had not PROVED anything.
> > You're effort at face-saving is admirable, but you're still
> confused.
> > Are you saying that I have a 1-in-1000 chance of winning ONE
> SESSION,
>
> No, I suspect your 87% claim is a little high but I have not
examined
> the games you play in enough detail to figure out the exact
number.
> It is pretty simple math although a fairly involved effort since
it
> involves the exact variance and payback of the games. I'm more
than
> happy allowing for your 87% claim of session wins. It's the fact
the
> system still losses long term that makes it a rare event for
anyone
> to come out ahead playing regularly for 7-8 years.
That's because you can't find it in you either to look at the
strategy session-by session,
I wonder how many times you will ignore the fact that an arbitrarily
defined session is meaningless. The ONLY valid measure is the
individual hands' expectation. All future possibilities are simply an
extrapolation from that point.
I can see you're getting completely lost.
nor can you accept the large winners do
come in individual sessions rather than lost in some obscure
probability model.
Large wins come on individual hands and anyones' results are the sum
of those hands. It can't get any simpler.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aces_hii" <aces_hii@y...> wrote: