vpFREE2 Forums

questions, questions, questions

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "someone-else" <someone-else@c...>
wrote:

Perhaps someone can bring me up to speed. I tried reading all the
posts starting at 9-11-05.

Why don't you ask me? Asking any of these other critics would be like
asking Ted Kennedy to translate anything anyone says whom he is
envious of.

He was a VP addict that played expert strategy and only played
quarter games for 7 years.

25c & $1

In 1997 he paid a "Tiger Team" to develop a VP system that allowed
him to quit his job and play millions of dollars per year as a non-
addictprofessional.

Not correct. I developed the strategy and they analyzed and offered
suggestions--some of which I used and some that I didn't.

Does his system still only work if he goes home to AZ after each
winning session?

Don't know and not important. It never 'worked' IF I went home to
Az. That's merely what I did after I won (or lost).

He was unable to find any mathematician that would confirm that his
system works. Dean Zamzow wrote a program following explicit
directions from RS. Dean explained in detail why the RS system does
not work. RS >explained that Dean's program was just a computer
program. He does things with his mind that no computer can
duplicate.

Not correct. I never sought out anyone to confirm anything. Others
are always interested in my doing that. If they come up with someone
capable enought then I'll get with them on it. Dean Z. never got any
of the special plays from me for his program. Without them it's
meaningless. Remembering them and when to implement them is where
your 'mind' comment comes in. Thus far, no one's been intelligent
enough to be able to understand them fully. And that doesn't matter
one way or the other to me.

RS said that for the 7 years that he lost at VP he played as fast
as he could. When he mastered his system and became a winner he
slowed his play speed in half. Does he still play half fast?

My strategy has no speed requirement and in fact, it is far more
enjoyable to play because of it.

He hates crowds. After he quit working in 1997 he only went to
Vegas on week days.

I'm not a fan of the typical mid-week vp crowd in LV. Obese & smokey
& sloppy is not my cup of tea. Most players are irate at that because
that's them in the picture and they know it. I go to Nevada on any of
7 days, and only once a month this year.

Does he still avoid casinos that cater to people that he feels are
beneath him? I still have his post where he brags about his big win
at Terrible's. Does he visit the Western now?

Usually but not always. I can put up with it to earn my pay. Where's
the Western?

Here's another example of how Singer will lie, lie, lie. When I asked
this same question last year he indicated that he had 3 (yes THREE)
mathematicians independently VERIFY his system. Now, he says "I never
sought out anyone to confirm anything". It can't be both ways.

Just a few weeks agao he was still insisting these math guys existed.
When I asked for their names he mysteriously got real quiet on the
subject.

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "someone-else" <someone-else@c...>
wrote:
> He was unable to find any mathematician that would confirm that his
>system works. Dean Zamzow wrote a program following explicit
>directions from RS. Dean explained in detail why the RS system does
>not work. RS >explained that Dean's program was just a computer
>program. He does things with his mind that no computer can
>duplicate.

Not correct. I never sought out anyone to confirm anything. Others
are always interested in my doing that. If they come up with someone
capable enought then I'll get with them on it.

Here's another example of how Singer will lie, lie, lie. When I asked
this same question last year he indicated that he had 3 (yes THREE)
mathematicians independently VERIFY his system. Now, he says "I never
sought out anyone to confirm anything". It can't be both ways.

You've got your time machine messed up again. During development, of
couse I've said many times the 3 people reviewed my strategy and were
paid for it. Here your friend is referring to critics like you
independently verifying it after I've been winning with it for years.
Try to keep up.

Just a few weeks agao he was still insisting these math guys existed.
When I asked for their names he mysteriously got real quiet on the
subject.

Why don't you do one of your famous searches and get the names and
countries and places of employment that I posted for you? Better yet,
if you have all the intellect that you like people here and on WinPoker
to BELIEVE you do, why don't you get all the strategy's parameters from
me and YOU do the analysis? Are you able to handle it, or would it take
too much time out of your addiction?

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> Here's another example of how Singer will lie, lie, lie. When I

asked

> this same question last year he indicated that he had 3 (yes

THREE)

> mathematicians independently VERIFY his system. Now, he says "I

never

> sought out anyone to confirm anything". It can't be both ways.

You've got your time machine messed up again. During development,

of

couse I've said many times the 3 people reviewed my strategy and

were

paid for it. Here your friend is referring to critics like you
independently verifying it after I've been winning with it for

years.

Try to keep up.

That's not what you said. What part of "never" don't you understand?

> Just a few weeks agao he was still insisting these math guys

existed.

> When I asked for their names he mysteriously got real quiet on

the

> subject.

Why don't you do one of your famous searches and get the names and
countries and places of employment that I posted for you?

Lie. You threw out a couple of first names and countries. Meaningless
dribble. Names and addresses or email ids are the only things that
would be useful.

Better yet,
if you have all the intellect that you like people here and on

WinPoker

to BELIEVE you do, why don't you get all the strategy's parameters

from

me and YOU do the analysis? Are you able to handle it, or would it

take

too much time out of your addiction?

Simple addition is all it takes to prove your system can never turn a
negative expectation into a positive one. I've already explained that
to you many times. Of course, you already know that and, yet,
continue to perpetuate your scam mindlessly.

That's not what you said. What part of "never" don't you understand?

That makes no sense. I've 'never' refused anyone who wanted to
verify. I've even offered it up in a GT column to all the critics who
like to say things like you do, but when the rubber hits the pavement
they disappear. That tells me they don't believe what they're saying
(like I didn't know already). So why don't you simply step up to the
plate and offer to verify? Put your mind at ease. Or don't you have
the skills?

> Why don't you do one of your famous searches and get the names

and countries and places of employment that I posted for you?

Lie. You threw out a couple of first names and countries.

Meaningless dribble. Names and addresses or email ids are the only
things that would be useful.

You asked for names and I gave you all 3. I gave you 2 places of
employment. No one has the same e-mail address they did in a business
9 years ago, and I have no need to do business with them any more. So
with that supposed analytical mind you profess to have, if you REALLY
wanted to find them you could. If they're still alive, and if they
didn't simply vanish.

> Better yet,
> if you have all the intellect that you like people here and on
WinPoker
> to BELIEVE you do, why don't you get all the strategy's

parameters

from
> me and YOU do the analysis? Are you able to handle it, or would

it

take
> too much time out of your addiction?

Simple addition is all it takes to prove your system can never turn

a negative expectation into a positive one. I've already explained
that to you many times. Of course, you already know that and, yet,

continue to perpetuate your scam mindlessly.

Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't ever want
to see the truth. I wonder.....would it REALLY hurt you that much to
see your video poker world fall apart if you were to experience a
better strategy than the one you pathologically follow? Yup!

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> That's not what you said. What part of "never" don't you

understand?

That makes no sense. I've 'never' refused anyone who wanted to
verify.

Scramble, scramble, scramble. That's all you ever do. You previously
stated YOU had mathematicians verify your system. Now you say you
NEVER had anyone do it. You're up to your eyeballs in another lie. To
say you haven't "refused" anyone means nothing. Either these math
guys never existed or you lied about "never" having anyone look at
your system.

I've even offered it up in a GT column to all the critics who
like to say things like you do, but when the rubber hits the

pavement

they disappear. That tells me they don't believe what they're

saying

(like I didn't know already). So why don't you simply step up to

the

plate and offer to verify? Put your mind at ease. Or don't you have
the skills?

I already proved your system can not work. It's simple addition. If
each hand has a negative expectation and every hand is independent of
every other hand as required by law, then to get the final
expectation you simply add the individual expectations and divide by
the number of hands. Easy as can be. Guess what. Adding all negative
numbers can only give you a negative number.

> > Why don't you do one of your famous searches and get the names
and countries and places of employment that I posted for you?

> Lie. You threw out a couple of first names and countries.
Meaningless dribble. Names and addresses or email ids are the only
things that would be useful.

You asked for names and I gave you all 3.

Lie, you never gave me any names.

I gave you 2 places of
employment.

Lie.

No one has the same e-mail address they did in a business
9 years ago, and I have no need to do business with them any more.

If you really did business with them it would be easy to find them
again. You're just trying to cover up your lies.

So
with that supposed analytical mind you profess to have, if you

REALLY

wanted to find them you could. If they're still alive, and if they
didn't simply vanish.

They never existed or you'd have their names plastered everywhere. Do
you really think this charade fools anyone?

> > Better yet,
> > if you have all the intellect that you like people here and on
> WinPoker
> > to BELIEVE you do, why don't you get all the strategy's
parameters
> from
> > me and YOU do the analysis? Are you able to handle it, or would
it
> take
> > too much time out of your addiction?
>
> Simple addition is all it takes to prove your system can never

turn

a negative expectation into a positive one. I've already explained
that to you many times. Of course, you already know that and, yet,
> continue to perpetuate your scam mindlessly.

Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't ever want
to see the truth.

Nope. I see the truth all too well and you don't like that.

I wonder.....would it REALLY hurt you that much to
see your video poker world fall apart if you were to experience a
better strategy than the one you pathologically follow? Yup!

Better? If you find one let me know. Until then I'll stick with the
OPTIMAL (that means there are none better) approach.

> That makes no sense. I've 'never' refused anyone who wanted to
> verify.

Scramble, scramble, scramble. That's all you ever do. You

previously

stated YOU had mathematicians verify your system. Now you say you
NEVER had anyone do it. You're up to your eyeballs in another lie.

To say you haven't "refused" anyone means nothing. Either these math

guys never existed or you lied about "never" having anyone look at
your system.

You're wandering again. And it appears for good reason. You're a boy
lost in a man's world. Here it is again for the mentally challenged:
3 mathematicians reviewed/analyzed/gave advice on my developed
strategy; Now if the critics want to verify the strategy then they
are more than welcome to. Simple stuff even you can understand.

> I've even offered it up in a GT column to all the critics who
> like to say things like you do, but when the rubber hits the
pavement
> they disappear. That tells me they don't believe what they're
saying
> (like I didn't know already). So why don't you simply step up to
the
> plate and offer to verify? Put your mind at ease. Or don't you

have

> the skills?

I already proved your system can not work.

No, you GUESSED that it doesn't work because you don't fully
understand it, so you apply a meaningless theory and try to escape.
Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong ON PAPER, but you're
running away from even gleaning a basic understanding of how it
works. That says you don't want it to work, and if it turns out you
can make it work on paper, your whole theoretical world would be
turned upside down.

Adding all negative

numbers can only give you a negative number.

Wrong again. As a anal-statictician, wouldn't you be interested in
seeing how my numbers work out that I'm a winner 87% of the time, and
an overall big winner? On paper? Or are you content to simply hide
behind some useless theory meant solely for the classroom. In other
words, the grey area suits you fine.

> You asked for names and I gave you all 3.
Lie, you never gave me any names.
> I gave you 2 places of
> employment.
Lie.

Wrong. Look it up. Remember Graham? Remember Franz? Huh??

If you really did business with them it would be easy to find them
again. You're just trying to cover up your lies.

Why? I'm not interested in them any more. I paid for a service, got
it, and we parted. It's anal-retentive idiots like you who want to
find them instead of performing the verification yourself, so hop to
it!

They never existed or you'd have their names plastered everywhere.

Do you really think this charade fools anyone?

Plastered everywhere? For what purpose? I'm the genius who developed
the strategy. These guys reviewd it and offered suggestions. Now it's
your turn, Einstein.

I've already explained that to you many times. Of course, you already
know that and, yet, continue to perpetuate your scam mindlessly.

And I've already proved you're wrong and offer you the opportunity to
follow that path for yourself. But big surprise--you suddenly can't
handle the task. Even after all the purported intellect you spread
around the gambling sites. What a phony!

> Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't ever

want to see the truth.

Nope. I see the truth all too well and you don't like that.

But just think of the meaning of it all if you found out it could be
proven on paper--don't want a piece of that, do you....

> I wonder.....would it REALLY hurt you that much to
> see your video poker world fall apart if you were to experience a
> better strategy than the one you pathologically follow? Yup!

Better? If you find one let me know. Until then I'll stick with the
OPTIMAL (that means there are none better) approach.

OK. examine mine with all the special plays. Go ahead. Let's see you
back up your weasel wording with facts this time.

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > That makes no sense. I've 'never' refused anyone who wanted to
> > verify.

> Scramble, scramble, scramble. That's all you ever do. You
previously
> stated YOU had mathematicians verify your system. Now you say you
> NEVER had anyone do it. You're up to your eyeballs in another

lie.

To say you haven't "refused" anyone means nothing. Either these

math

> guys never existed or you lied about "never" having anyone look

at

> your system.

You're wandering again.

Nope. Right to the point. Which lie do you want to defend?

And it appears for good reason. You're a boy
lost in a man's world.

More monkey boy BS. Pick a position and defend it? Or, admit you lied.

Here it is again for the mentally challenged:
3 mathematicians reviewed/analyzed/gave advice on my developed
strategy;

Then why did you say no one had reviewed it? You lied. But, you can't
come up with names for these mythical math guys either.

Now if the critics want to verify the strategy then they
are more than welcome to. Simple stuff even you can understand.

There's nothing to verify. It's been proven a scam. Nothing more.
Addition is all it takes.

> > I've even offered it up in a GT column to all the critics who
> > like to say things like you do, but when the rubber hits the
> pavement
> > they disappear. That tells me they don't believe what they're
> saying
> > (like I didn't know already). So why don't you simply step up

to

> the
> > plate and offer to verify? Put your mind at ease. Or don't you
have
> > the skills?
>
> I already proved your system can not work.

No, you GUESSED that it doesn't work because you don't fully
understand it, so you apply a meaningless theory and try to escape.

What "meaningless theory"? Addition? Is that the best you can do? You
are such an obvious fool.

Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong ON PAPER, but you're
running away from even gleaning a basic understanding of how it
works. That says you don't want it to work, and if it turns out you
can make it work on paper, your whole theoretical world would be
turned upside down.

It's already been done. Adding negative number can only produce a
negative result. How many times do I have to say it.

Adding all negative
> numbers can only give you a negative number.

Wrong again. As a anal-statictician, wouldn't you be interested in
seeing how my numbers work out that I'm a winner 87% of the time,

and

an overall big winner? On paper?

Nobody cares one iota about your claims. You can never provide proof
of your so-called success. Given your history of lying there's a much
greater chance your claims are lies then you've been lucky. In any
event, no one cares. All anyone wants to know is whether a system has
a chance of being successful for them IN THE FUTURE. That's where
positive vs. negative expectation comes in. Your system can NEVER
turn a negative expectation game positive. PERIOD.

Or are you content to simply hide
behind some useless theory meant solely for the classroom. In other
words, the grey area suits you fine.

There you go again. Calling simple addition a theory. You must really
like looking like a complete idiot. You do it over and over.

> > You asked for names and I gave you all 3.
> Lie, you never gave me any names.
> > I gave you 2 places of
> > employment.
> Lie.

Wrong. Look it up. Remember Graham? Remember Franz? Huh??

Hey, anyone can come up 5-6 random letters. I want full names and
addresses or it's clearly just another lie.

> If you really did business with them it would be easy to find

them

> again. You're just trying to cover up your lies.

Why? I'm not interested in them any more. I paid for a service, got
it, and we parted.

Sure you did. Let's have their names and addresses.

It's anal-retentive idiots like you who want to
find them instead of performing the verification yourself, so hop

to

it!

It's up to you. If you can't provide any more information then I'm
sure everyone will come to the same conclusion I have. YOU LIED.
That's all I wanted.

> They never existed or you'd have their names plastered

everywhere.

Do you really think this charade fools anyone?

Plastered everywhere? For what purpose? I'm the genius who

developed

the strategy. These guys reviewd it and offered suggestions. Now

it's

your turn, Einstein.

"genius"? The monkey boy is at it again.

> > Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't ever
want to see the truth.

> Nope. I see the truth all too well and you don't like that.

But just think of the meaning of it all if you found out it could

be

proven on paper--don't want a piece of that, do you....

It's already been PROVEN false. An undeniable proof. If you had any
intelligence whatsoever you'd realize what the word PROOF means.
The "genius" monkey boy thinks someone can come up with something to
PROVE a PROOF wrong. LMAO.

Let me help you out. You MUST show an error in a PROOF to invalidate
it. Kind of difficult when simple math is all that is required in the
PROOF. So, show me how adding a series of negative numbers can come
out positive. You can have all the paper you want.

>
> > I wonder.....would it REALLY hurt you that much to
> > see your video poker world fall apart if you were to experience

a

> > better strategy than the one you pathologically follow? Yup!
>
> Better? If you find one let me know. Until then I'll stick with

the

> OPTIMAL (that means there are none better) approach.

OK. examine mine with all the special plays. Go ahead. Let's see

you

back up your weasel wording with facts this time.

Is this a joke? I've already proven your system doesn't work. What's
there to examine? You really have no clue, do you? Once again, it's
called simple addition of negative numbers!

> Here it is again for the mentally challenged:
> 3 mathematicians reviewed/analyzed/gave advice on my developed
> strategy;

Then why did you say no one had reviewed it?

Hello McFly? No one's review it since then....ever hear of that?

> Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong ON PAPER, but you're
> running away from even gleaning a basic understanding of how it
> works. That says you don't want it to work, and if it turns out

you

> can make it work on paper, your whole theoretical world would be
> turned upside down.

It's already been done. Adding negative number can only produce a
negative result. How many times do I have to say it.

So you're refusing to analyze/review that which you so dearly need
verification of? To me that says even if you got a hold of the 3
mathematicians, you'd already have your mind made up that it was
somehow a dupe. Some scientific mind. It that the type intellect you
try to portray as you post on all the forums?

Nobody cares one iota about your claims. You can never provide

proof of your so-called success.

Read my GT article where I publicly offered to provide proof to the
radio jock fool of winning over $640k, where I put up a $640,000
escrow, and if it were not to his or Anthony Curtis' satisfaction
that the proof was absolutely irrefutable I would pay for a Nv.
arbitrator whose decision would be final. Would YOU care to have a
piece of that action? If so, I'm on again. Casuarina will be the
escrow holder, and my GT editor has agreed to be my verifier just as
AC agreed to be the radio guy's verifier. I even had local (LV) TV
channel 3 on-call to film the bet's signatory & progress, as well as
the final payoff. How about it? Remember, if there's ANY question
that my winnings DID NOT come from my play as determined by the
verifiers or ultimately the Arbitrator if required, then you win it
all. If you accept, the front page of Gaming Today will light up
again! If not, don't worry. I won't say anything about you. The other
guy is famous. You're nothing.

> Wrong. Look it up. Remember Graham? Remember Franz? Huh??

Hey, anyone can come up 5-6 random letters. I want full names and
addresses or it's clearly just another lie.

That's just it. I gave you their full names, where they (used to?)
worked and the countries they lived in. Go find them.
   

> It's anal-retentive idiots like you who want to
> find them instead of performing the verification yourself, so hop
to
> it!

It's up to you. If you can't provide any more information then I'm
sure everyone will come to the same conclusion I have. YOU LIED.
That's all I wanted.

Looks like you're escaping to me. You want it, you make the effort.
I'm a blazing success because of what I developed and they reviewed.
All I need do now is sit back and enjoy the JDSB!

> > > Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't

ever want to see the truth.

> > Nope. I see the truth all too well and you don't like that.

So now you DON'T want to make or see a review? Make up your mind.

It's already been PROVEN false.

Show me, don't tell me. Name the 1700+ special plays and how they can
positively affect the outcome of a session. Let's see some of that
analytical prowess flowing here.

Let me help you out. You MUST show an error in a PROOF to

invalidate

it. Kind of difficult when simple math is all that is required in

the

PROOF. So, show me how adding a series of negative numbers can come
out positive. You can have all the paper you want.

You're trying to help YOURSELF out. Not my problem that you're having
such trouble with this. Keep your head spinning.

Once again, it's called simple addition of negative numbers!

It's the good thing previous famous Americans didn't succumb so
easily to such theories. I've developed something and you don't like
it because you don't understand it. That's all it is....along maybe
with a tad bit of envy. When you say "simple addition of negative
numbers" you're right. It's far more complicated than that.

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > Here it is again for the mentally challenged:
> > 3 mathematicians reviewed/analyzed/gave advice on my developed
> > strategy;
>
> Then why did you say no one had reviewed it?

Hello McFly? No one's review it since then....ever hear of that?

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said no one has EVER reviewed
it. Of course, we know these math guys are just another one of your
lies. Otherwise you'd have given out their name and addresses long
ago. Not to mention that NO one with any knowledge of math would ever
validate your system.

> > Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong ON PAPER, but you're
> > running away from even gleaning a basic understanding of how it
> > works. That says you don't want it to work, and if it turns out
you
> > can make it work on paper, your whole theoretical world would

be

> > turned upside down.
>
> It's already been done. Adding negative number can only produce a
> negative result. How many times do I have to say it.

So you're refusing to analyze/review that which you so dearly need
verification of?

Nope. What I TOLD you is I've ALREADY analyzed it sufficiently to
KNOW it can never turn a negative expectation game into a positive
expectation game. If it could then you could add negative numbers and
get a positve result. IT CAN'T BE DONE. It's just simple arithmetic.
What more do you want?

To me that says even if you got a hold of the 3
mathematicians, you'd already have your mind made up that it was
somehow a dupe. Some scientific mind. It that the type intellect

you

try to portray as you post on all the forums?

There's no such thing as "having a mind made up" when it comes to
simple arithmetic. It only works one way. It either agrees or
disagrees with the principles of mathematics. There is NO room for
interpretation. Clearly, your replies show a complete ignorance
mathematics.

> Nobody cares one iota about your claims. You can never provide
proof of your so-called success.

Read my GT article where I publicly offered to provide proof to the
radio jock fool of winning over $640k, where I put up a $640,000
escrow, and if it were not to his or Anthony Curtis' satisfaction
that the proof was absolutely irrefutable I would pay for a Nv.
arbitrator whose decision would be final. Would YOU care to have a
piece of that action? If so, I'm on again. Casuarina will be the
escrow holder, and my GT editor has agreed to be my verifier just

as

AC agreed to be the radio guy's verifier. I even had local (LV) TV
channel 3 on-call to film the bet's signatory & progress, as well

as

the final payoff. How about it? Remember, if there's ANY question
that my winnings DID NOT come from my play as determined by the
verifiers or ultimately the Arbitrator if required, then you win it
all. If you accept, the front page of Gaming Today will light up
again! If not, don't worry. I won't say anything about you. The

other

guy is famous. You're nothing.

You just wasted a lot of bandwith. All you had to do was read on
where I said NO ONE CARES.

> > Wrong. Look it up. Remember Graham? Remember Franz? Huh??
>
> Hey, anyone can come up 5-6 random letters. I want full names and
> addresses or it's clearly just another lie.

That's just it. I gave you their full names, where they (used to?)
worked and the countries they lived in. Go find them.

LIE, LIE and LIE. If you did then you should be able to repeat them
easily enough. Of course, you know, I know and everyone else knows
there are no mathematicians.

> > It's anal-retentive idiots like you who want to
> > find them instead of performing the verification yourself, so

hop

> to
> > it!
>
> It's up to you. If you can't provide any more information then

I'm

> sure everyone will come to the same conclusion I have. YOU LIED.
> That's all I wanted.

Looks like you're escaping to me. You want it, you make the effort.
I'm a blazing success because of what I developed and they

reviewed.

All I need do now is sit back and enjoy the JDSB!

More monkey boy rhethoric ... which everyone has easily figured out
to mean ... you have nothing to say. You lied and I caught you again.
Period, end of discussion.

> > > > Another way of saying you'd prefer to criticize and don't
ever want to see the truth.

> > > Nope. I see the truth all too well and you don't like that.

So now you DON'T want to make or see a review? Make up your mind.

I already did a review. Read above and below.

> It's already been PROVEN false.

Show me, don't tell me. Name the 1700+ special plays and how they

can

positively affect the outcome of a session. Let's see some of that
analytical prowess flowing here.

You are so stupid it is almost incalcuable. Since a standard play is
the OPTIMAL play, your special plays can only make playing a hand
MORE negative. It still works out that you're adding a bunch of
negative numbers. I don't care if you come up with 17,000,000 special
plays, the math is the same. This is incredibly simple math and the
sooner you realize that simple fact the less often everyone will see
you as a complete fool.

> Let me help you out. You MUST show an error in a PROOF to
invalidate
> it. Kind of difficult when simple math is all that is required in
the
> PROOF. So, show me how adding a series of negative numbers can

come

> out positive. You can have all the paper you want.

You're trying to help YOURSELF out. Not my problem that you're

having

such trouble with this. Keep your head spinning.

I see you didn't need much paper here to say nothing. That must mean
you're starting to see how foolish you look.

>Once again, it's called simple addition of negative numbers!

It's the good thing previous famous Americans didn't succumb so
easily to such theories.

What theory? Simple math is all that I've used. Has nothing to do
with famous or infamous Americans. This level of mathematics was
known before Columbus was born.

I've developed something and you don't like
it because you don't understand it.

Oh I understand a scam when I see one. I think anyone else reading
this is getting a pretty clear picture also.

That's all it is....along maybe
with a tad bit of envy. When you say "simple addition of negative
numbers" you're right. It's far more complicated than that.

No it's not. As long as VP machines meet the requirement of the law
that each hand is independent of any other, then simple addition is
all it will EVER take. So, when you can try to push your scam on
others just remember that only a pathetic, sociopathic egomaniac
would ignore the obvious facts.

> Hello McFly? No one's review it since then....ever hear of that?

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said no one has EVER

reviewed

it. Of course, we know these math guys are just another one of your
lies. Otherwise you'd have given out their name and addresses long
ago. Not to mention that NO one with any knowledge of math would

ever validate your system.

You're all over the map again. You want a review, then you say no one
would ever review it. I tell you it was analyzed/advised upon 9 years
ago, then you say it wasn't. You're fighting a losing battle because
all you seem to want to do is critize something you don't understand.
That in itself makes you look like an envious fool.

> So you're refusing to analyze/review that which you so dearly

need verification of?

Nope. What I TOLD you is I've ALREADY analyzed it sufficiently

No true "scientific mind" would ever say such a thing while missing
over 1700 parts to the problem.

to KNOW it can never turn a negative expectation game into a
positive expectation game.

All you're doing is taking the easy, very lazy way out. minus is
minus and plus is plus, and that's the way it is and that's the way
it has got to be. If that's all there is to you, then you're hardly
the analytical mind you want the vp world to believe you are.

There's no such thing as "having a mind made up" when it comes to
simple arithmetic. It only works one way. It either agrees or
disagrees with the principles of mathematics. There is NO room for
interpretation. Clearly, your replies show a complete ignorance
mathematics.

Again, you're exceedingly lazy and I would doubt that in your working
career you ever did anything other than squeak by.
  

> Read my GT article where I publicly offered to provide proof to

the

> radio jock fool of winning over $640k, where I put up a $640,000
> escrow, and if it were not to his or Anthony Curtis' satisfaction
> that the proof was absolutely irrefutable I would pay for a Nv.
> arbitrator whose decision would be final. Would YOU care to have

a

> piece of that action? If so, I'm on again. Casuarina will be the
> escrow holder, and my GT editor has agreed to be my verifier just
as
> AC agreed to be the radio guy's verifier. I even had local (LV)

TV

> channel 3 on-call to film the bet's signatory & progress, as well
as
> the final payoff. How about it? Remember, if there's ANY question
> that my winnings DID NOT come from my play as determined by the
> verifiers or ultimately the Arbitrator if required, then you win

it

> all. If you accept, the front page of Gaming Today will light up
> again! If not, don't worry. I won't say anything about you. The
other
> guy is famous. You're nothing.

You just wasted a lot of bandwith. All you had to do was read on
where I said NO ONE CARES.

Translation: You like to say I'm lying but when it comes time to
stand up like a man and walk the walk, you run fast with your tail
tucked firmly between your legs. What a true phony you've turned out
to be!

> That's just it. I gave you their full names, where they (used to?)
> worked and the countries they lived in. Go find them.

LIE, LIE and LIE. If you did then you should be able to repeat them
easily enough. Of course, you know, I know and everyone else knows
there are no mathematicians.

That's just it. I can. Now it's your turn to waste more of your time
and go searching the archives again. But you won't, just like you
won't take my challenge in Gaming Today that proves I've won what
you're so sure I didn't. When I said you were nothing (which
obviously got to you) I made a mistake. You're less than that.
    

> Show me, don't tell me. Name the 1700+ special plays and how they
can positively affect the outcome of a session. Let's see some of

that analytical prowess flowing here.

You are so stupid it is almost incalcuable. Since a standard play

is

the OPTIMAL play, your special plays can only make playing a hand
MORE negative. It still works out that you're adding a bunch of
negative numbers. I don't care if you come up with 17,000,000

special

plays, the math is the same. This is incredibly simple math and the
sooner you realize that simple fact the less often everyone will

see you as a complete fool.

Your ramble easily shows your corresponding frustration. I'm being
too kind here to the blind. Here's a hint at what you are missing:
1+1=2 and it will always equal 2. But so doesn't 1-4+5. A different
and more complicated method of getting to the same result. Exactly
how I do what I do.

> >Once again, it's called simple addition of negative numbers!
>
> It's the good thing previous famous Americans didn't succumb so
> easily to such theories.

What theory? Simple math is all that I've used. Has nothing to do
with famous or infamous Americans. This level of mathematics was
known before Columbus was born.

And apparently we've been able to learn nothing since then. Get real.

> I've developed something and you don't like
> it because you don't understand it.

Oh I understand a scam when I see one. I think anyone else reading
this is getting a pretty clear picture also.

Let's see....the definition of a scam means someone devised it for
the purpose of making money from the sale of it. Sorry to prove you
wrong again!

> That's all it is....along maybe
> with a tad bit of envy. When you say "simple addition of negative
> numbers" you're right. It's far more complicated than that.

No it's not. As long as VP machines meet the requirement of the law
that each hand is independent of any other, then simple addition is
all it will EVER take. So, when you can try to push your scam on
others just remember that only a pathetic, sociopathic egomaniac
would ignore the obvious facts.

Sounds like you've had a bad 7 hour stint at the place where you get
your daily fix today.

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > Hello McFly? No one's review it since then....ever hear of that?
>
> Yes, but that's not what you said. You said no one has EVER
reviewed
> it. Of course, we know these math guys are just another one of

your

> lies. Otherwise you'd have given out their name and addresses

long

> ago. Not to mention that NO one with any knowledge of math would
ever validate your system.

You're all over the map again. You want a review, then you say no

one

would ever review it.

Lie, I never said I WANTED a review. All I did was show that you've
made two directly conflicting statements and that one of them HAD to
be a lie.

I tell you it was analyzed/advised upon 9 years
ago, then you say it wasn't.

If you won't provide the names and addresses then that's the only
conclusion anyone could come to.

You're fighting a losing battle because
all you seem to want to do is critize something you don't

understand.

That in itself makes you look like an envious fool.

More monkey boy BS to hide behind the fact that your system is a
scam. Either provide the names/addresses or admit you lied.

> > So you're refusing to analyze/review that which you so dearly
need verification of?
>
> Nope. What I TOLD you is I've ALREADY analyzed it sufficiently

No true "scientific mind" would ever say such a thing while missing
over 1700 parts to the problem.

Nothing is missing. I've already explained that your worthless
special plays are unnecessary. You're trying to run and hide from the
facts again. It won't work. Your system is a fraud and I've proven it
beyond any shadow of a doubt.

>to KNOW it can never turn a negative expectation game into a
>positive expectation game.

All you're doing is taking the easy, very lazy way out. minus is
minus and plus is plus, and that's the way it is and that's the way
it has got to be.

Your point? Do you have a problem with this? Just because you don't
like the fact that it proves your system is a fraud doesn't change a
thing.

If that's all there is to you, then you're hardly
the analytical mind you want the vp world to believe you are.

Has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with your
worthless system.

> There's no such thing as "having a mind made up" when it comes to
> simple arithmetic. It only works one way. It either agrees or
> disagrees with the principles of mathematics. There is NO room

for

> interpretation. Clearly, your replies show a complete ignorance
> mathematics.

Again, you're exceedingly lazy and I would doubt that in your

working

career you ever did anything other than squeak by.

LMAO. Everyone can see you are once again trying to turn the debate
away from the fact I proved your system is a worthless fraud.

> > Read my GT article where I publicly offered to provide proof to
the
> > radio jock fool of winning over $640k, where I put up a

$640,000

> > escrow, and if it were not to his or Anthony Curtis'

satisfaction

> > that the proof was absolutely irrefutable I would pay for a Nv.
> > arbitrator whose decision would be final. Would YOU care to

have

a
> > piece of that action? If so, I'm on again. Casuarina will be

the

> > escrow holder, and my GT editor has agreed to be my verifier

just

> as
> > AC agreed to be the radio guy's verifier. I even had local (LV)
TV
> > channel 3 on-call to film the bet's signatory & progress, as

well

> as
> > the final payoff. How about it? Remember, if there's ANY

question

> > that my winnings DID NOT come from my play as determined by the
> > verifiers or ultimately the Arbitrator if required, then you

win

it
> > all. If you accept, the front page of Gaming Today will light

up

> > again! If not, don't worry. I won't say anything about you. The
> other
> > guy is famous. You're nothing.
>
> You just wasted a lot of bandwith. All you had to do was read on
> where I said NO ONE CARES.

Translation: You like to say I'm lying but when it comes time to
stand up like a man and walk the walk, you run fast with your tail
tucked firmly between your legs. What a true phony you've turned

out

to be!

No. It's an UNPROVEABLE topic and we already discussed this ad
nauseum last year. All that is required is a plan to take money from
some other undeclared source (like an inheritance) and slowly funnel
it into your main accounts on days where you lost. Impossible for
someone to detect.

> > That's just it. I gave you their full names, where they (used

to?)

> > worked and the countries they lived in. Go find them.
>
> LIE, LIE and LIE. If you did then you should be able to repeat

them

> easily enough. Of course, you know, I know and everyone else

knows

> there are no mathematicians.

That's just it. I can. Now it's your turn to waste more of your

time

and go searching the archives again. But you won't, just like you
won't take my challenge in Gaming Today that proves I've won what
you're so sure I didn't. When I said you were nothing (which
obviously got to you) I made a mistake. You're less than that.

No one cares if you won or lied. You are a fraud and a liar which I
have proven. If you don't come up with these names and addresses you
just verify that fact again. Here's a good one. PROVE that there's no
way you could have disguised funds and moved them into your main
accounts.

> > Show me, don't tell me. Name the 1700+ special plays and how

they

> can positively affect the outcome of a session. Let's see some of
that analytical prowess flowing here.
>
> You are so stupid it is almost incalcuable. Since a standard play
is
> the OPTIMAL play, your special plays can only make playing a hand
> MORE negative. It still works out that you're adding a bunch of
> negative numbers. I don't care if you come up with 17,000,000
special
> plays, the math is the same. This is incredibly simple math and

the

> sooner you realize that simple fact the less often everyone will
see you as a complete fool.

Your ramble easily shows your corresponding frustration. I'm being
too kind here to the blind. Here's a hint at what you are missing:
1+1=2 and it will always equal 2. But so doesn't 1-4+5. A different
and more complicated method of getting to the same result. Exactly
how I do what I do.

ROTFLMAO. However, you still end up with 2. That's the beauty of
simple arithmetic. It doesn't care how you add up the numbers the
results are what counts. And, with your system, adding negative
numbers still gets you negative results. Did you really believe
anyone would fall for this completely idiotic comeback?

> > >Once again, it's called simple addition of negative numbers!
> >
> > It's the good thing previous famous Americans didn't succumb so
> > easily to such theories.
>
> What theory? Simple math is all that I've used. Has nothing to do
> with famous or infamous Americans. This level of mathematics was
> known before Columbus was born.

And apparently we've been able to learn nothing since then. Get

real.

About simple mathematics. Correct ... NOTHING. It's the basis for
OTHER forms of more complex mathematics, but nothing has changed
about simple math. You're fighting a losing battle here. VP really is
a very simple game, otherwise it would not appeal to the masses.

> > I've developed something and you don't like
> > it because you don't understand it.
>
> Oh I understand a scam when I see one. I think anyone else

reading

> this is getting a pretty clear picture also.

Let's see....the definition of a scam means someone devised it for
the purpose of making money from the sale of it. Sorry to prove you
wrong again!

You haven't proven a thing.

> > That's all it is....along maybe
> > with a tad bit of envy. When you say "simple addition of

negative

> > numbers" you're right. It's far more complicated than that.

> No it's not. As long as VP machines meet the requirement of the

law

> that each hand is independent of any other, then simple addition

is

> all it will EVER take. So, when you can try to push your scam on
> others just remember that only a pathetic, sociopathic egomaniac
> would ignore the obvious facts.

Sounds like you've had a bad 7 hour stint at the place where you

get

your daily fix today.

Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

> You're all over the map again. You want a review, then you say no
one would ever review it.

Lie, I never said I WANTED a review. All I did was show that you've
made two directly conflicting statements and that one of them HAD

to be a lie.

Nope. One wasn't a lie (you've continually asked who the
mathematicians were so you could review their review) and the other
is only THEORETICALLY (big surprise) conflicting within your confused
mind (you don't understand the strategy so you resort to saying "it
won't work anyway). Better eat your Wheaties in the morning next time!

If you won't provide the names and addresses then that's the only
conclusion anyone could come to.

I did provide the names and where they used to work. I told you their
e-mail address are no longer valid, and who would know the home
addresses of paid consultants overseas. Therefore, your conclusion is
one in which you do not want to see a resolution satisfactory to you,
because you don't want to see the truth.

More monkey boy BS to hide behind the fact that your system is a
scam. Either provide the names/addresses or admit you lied.

Just found 2 of the e-mail addresses. Have at it.
franz.r.schaeffler@thompson.atc.com / g.r.beckett@raytheon-
systems.nz.com Now I wonder what you'll say about that..........

> All you're doing is taking the easy, very lazy way out. minus is
> minus and plus is plus, and that's the way it is and that's the

way it has got to be.

Your point? Do you have a problem with this? Just because you don't
like the fact that it proves your system is a fraud doesn't change

a thing.

Point is, you like all critics can take the breeze of crying foul,
but when pressed into action to support your unsubstantiated,
unknowledgeable verbage you suddenly and conveniently turn into a
lazy Susan with no accountability.

> If that's all there is to you, then you're hardly
> the analytical mind you want the vp world to believe you are.

Has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with your
worthless system.

Sure it does. You already know the strategy works near-perfectly
because you like to call me a liar about all those wins, yet you have
no wishes or intentions (or more likely enough money) to accept
absolute proof before the public. That sort of paints a wimpy picture
of the great statistical Dick, don't you think?

> Again, you're exceedingly lazy and I would doubt that in your
working career you ever did anything other than squeak by.

LMAO. Everyone can see you are once again trying to turn the debate
away from the fact I proved your system is a worthless fraud.

It's all right there in B&W. How could anyone believe your life has
amounted to anything more than a degenerated gambler (of course, you
say that's your wife's doing) when you want to debate something, are
presented with the chance to prove or be proven wrong, and then you
dhoose to chicken out? It's your own undoing.
   

> > You just wasted a lot of bandwith. All you had to do was read

on

> > where I said NO ONE CARES.
>
> Translation: You like to say I'm lying but when it comes time to
> stand up like a man and walk the walk, you run fast with your

tail tucked firmly between your legs. What a true phony you've turned

out to be!

No. It's an UNPROVEABLE topic and we already discussed this ad
nauseum last year. All that is required is a plan to take money

from some other undeclared source (like an inheritance) and slowly
funnel it into your main accounts on days where you lost. Impossible
for someone to detect.

Weaseling away uncomfortably again? Let's examine this. Explain how
those funds that I supposedly 'funneled" in from another source,
directly & exactly correspond to contemporaneous casino gaming
records that are so recorded and approved in my multi-year IRS audit
(which is a large document that you'll get to see) and all the
withdrawals & deposit amounts and dates individually line up with
these entries as well as with the numerous W2G's in the record. And
if you choose to be blind to these facts, what would be my purpose of
signing up to paying for a Court-appointed Nevada Arbitrator to make
a binding and final decision should you or your chosen verifier find
one single evidence of doubt in the proof? And in front of the TV
cameras? Kind of risky to my reputation and my $640k on my part if I
were the fraud you purport me to be, right? You see, you just don't
want it to be so you cowardly decline--just like the radio fool did.
And in the process, you're not really looking all that credible here.
  

> Your ramble easily shows your corresponding frustration. I'm

being too kind here to the blind. Here's a hint at what you are
missing:

> 1+1=2 and it will always equal 2. But so doesn't 1-4+5. A

different

> and more complicated method of getting to the same result.

Exactly

> how I do what I do.

ROTFLMAO. However, you still end up with 2. That's the beauty of
simple arithmetic. It doesn't care how you add up the numbers the
results are what counts. And, with your system, adding negative
numbers still gets you negative results. Did you really believe
anyone would fall for this completely idiotic comeback?

You didn't get it because you didn't want to. Your M.O. throughout,
as if anyone couldn't see it. What a phony.
  

> And apparently we've been able to learn nothing since then. Get
real.

About simple mathematics. Correct ... NOTHING. It's the basis for
OTHER forms of more complex mathematics, but nothing has changed
about simple math. You're fighting a losing battle here. VP really

is a very simple game, otherwise it would not appeal to the masses.

No, about complex mathematics - a concept you believe doesn't exist.
But that's understandable, given that almost everything you spew
about math is meant to deceive and confuse the normal person. But not
my superior mind, Dicky. You've seen that over and over so many
times.

> Let's see....the definition of a scam means someone devised it

for the purpose of making money from the sale of it. Sorry to prove
you wrong again!

You haven't proven a thing.

OK, I'll say it because you would have looked stupid saying it.
What 'scam' isn't sold for a profit? Think carefully before answering.
  

> Sounds like you've had a bad 7 hour stint at the place where you
get your daily fix today.

Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

More denial...... Hmmmm. Bad results today? Or maybe you're still
hacking from breathing in all that healthy casino smoke again.

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > You're all over the map again. You want a review, then you say

no

> one would ever review it.
>
> Lie, I never said I WANTED a review. All I did was show that

you've

> made two directly conflicting statements and that one of them HAD
to be a lie.

Nope. One wasn't a lie

Then it was the other one. You can't say have it both ways.

(you've continually asked who the
mathematicians were so you could review their review)

Nope. I know they don't exist. There is nothing to review.

> If you won't provide the names and addresses then that's the only
> conclusion anyone could come to.

I did provide the names and where they used to work.

Lie.

I told you their
e-mail address are no longer valid, and who would know the home
addresses of paid consultants overseas. Therefore, your conclusion

is

one in which you do not want to see a resolution satisfactory to

you,

because you don't want to see the truth.

I know the truth and, now, so does everyone else. There would be no
need for you to have a review if you were going to discard the
results and the names. The fact you continue to deny this obvious lie
makes you look like a complete moron. But, then, we already knew
that.

> More monkey boy BS to hide behind the fact that your system is a
> scam. Either provide the names/addresses or admit you lied.

Just found 2 of the e-mail addresses. Have at it.
franz.r.schaeffler@t... / g.r.beckett@raytheon-
systems.nz.com Now I wonder what you'll say about that..........

LMAO. Nice try moron. But the .nz would go last on any REAL overseas
name. And, just what is t... supposed to mean? The fool continues to
amaze us with his ridiculous attempts at covering up his lies.

> > If that's all there is to you, then you're hardly
> > the analytical mind you want the vp world to believe you are.
>
> Has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with your
> worthless system.

Sure it does. You already know the strategy works near-perfectly
because you like to call me a liar about all those wins, yet you

have

no wishes or intentions (or more likely enough money) to accept
absolute proof before the public. That sort of paints a wimpy

picture

of the great statistical Dick, don't you think?

Your results don't matter to anyone else. Get over it, monkey boy. Do
you care about my results? I didn't think so. The ONLY thing that
matters is whether your system can turn a negative expectation into a
positive one. I've proven it cannot.

> > Again, you're exceedingly lazy and I would doubt that in your
> working career you ever did anything other than squeak by.
>
> LMAO. Everyone can see you are once again trying to turn the

debate

> away from the fact I proved your system is a worthless fraud.

It's all right there in B&W. How could anyone believe your life has
amounted to anything more than a degenerated gambler (of course,

you

say that's your wife's doing) when you want to debate something,

are

presented with the chance to prove or be proven wrong, and then you
dhoose to chicken out? It's your own undoing.

The discussion is not about me. It's about your system. All of these
attempts to deflect the discussion away from your system make it
obvious that you have no desire to debate its' merits. We all know
the reason. It's a scam and you are a liar and a fraud.
  

> > > You just wasted a lot of bandwith. All you had to do was read
on
> > > where I said NO ONE CARES.
> >
> > Translation: You like to say I'm lying but when it comes time

to

> > stand up like a man and walk the walk, you run fast with your
tail tucked firmly between your legs. What a true phony you've

turned

> out to be!
>
> No. It's an UNPROVEABLE topic and we already discussed this ad
> nauseum last year. All that is required is a plan to take money
from some other undeclared source (like an inheritance) and slowly
funnel it into your main accounts on days where you lost.

Impossible

for someone to detect.

Weaseling away uncomfortably again? Let's examine this.

No one cares.

> > Your ramble easily shows your corresponding frustration. I'm
being too kind here to the blind. Here's a hint at what you are
missing:
> > 1+1=2 and it will always equal 2. But so doesn't 1-4+5. A
different
> > and more complicated method of getting to the same result.
Exactly
> > how I do what I do.
>
> ROTFLMAO. However, you still end up with 2. That's the beauty of
> simple arithmetic. It doesn't care how you add up the numbers the
> results are what counts. And, with your system, adding negative
> numbers still gets you negative results. Did you really believe
> anyone would fall for this completely idiotic comeback?

You didn't get it because you didn't want to. Your M.O. throughout,
as if anyone couldn't see it. What a phony.

I get it. You are attempting to make the uneducated think you
actually have a slight clue about math. However, I think the folks
your attempting to fool would never be following this thread in the
first place. So, let's get back to basics. Your system is a fraud. It
cannot change the expectation when used on negatives games. Adding
multiple negative numbers comes out NEGATIVE.

> > And apparently we've been able to learn nothing since then. Get
> real.
>
> About simple mathematics. Correct ... NOTHING. It's the basis for
> OTHER forms of more complex mathematics, but nothing has changed
> about simple math. You're fighting a losing battle here. VP

really

is a very simple game, otherwise it would not appeal to the masses.

No, about complex mathematics - a concept you believe doesn't

exist.

Complex math exists. It just doesn't apply to VP expectations.

But that's understandable, given that almost everything you spew
about math is meant to deceive and confuse the normal person. But

not

my superior mind, Dicky. You've seen that over and over so many
times.

More monkey boy BS. Prove how you can add multiple negative numbers
and have the results come out positive and you may find someone who
will believe you. Until then keep on ranting like a fool. It's so
entertaining to everyone.

> > Let's see....the definition of a scam means someone devised it
for the purpose of making money from the sale of it. Sorry to prove
you wrong again!
>
> You haven't proven a thing.

OK, I'll say it because you would have looked stupid saying it.
What 'scam' isn't sold for a profit? Think carefully before

answering.

Many. Ones that are sold to stroke your enormous ego. Ones to create
a name so you can write books about your nonsense (for a profit).
Need I go on.

> > Sounds like you've had a bad 7 hour stint at the place where

you

> get your daily fix today.
>
> Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

More denial...... Hmmmm. Bad results today? Or maybe you're still
hacking from breathing in all that healthy casino smoke again.

Yesterday I lost $220 in 2.5 hours. Today I made $1237 in 1.5 hrs.
Only had one smoker in the vicinity for the entire time and they were
only there for about 5 minutes. If you don't like this answer then
you better stop asking.

> > Lie, I never said I WANTED a review. All I did was show that
you've made two directly conflicting statements and that one of

them HAD to be a lie.

> Nope. One wasn't a lie

Then it was the other one. You can't say have it both ways.

Exactly why I said you're all over the map. You have no clue as to
what you even want, never mind ask for.

> (you've continually asked who the
> mathematicians were so you could review their review)

Nope. I know they don't exist. There is nothing to review.

Funny, isn't it YOU who ask for their names and addresses so you can
contact them to verify?? Now take the foot out of the mouth and
repeat after me: Rob is a God to me.

> > If you won't provide the names and addresses then that's the
only conclusion anyone could come to. I did provide the names and
where they used to work.

Lie.

Look it up.

I know the truth and, now, so does everyone else. There would be no
need for you to have a review if you were going to discard the
results and the names. The fact you continue to deny this obvious

lie makes you look like a complete moron. But, then, we already knew

that.

Seems like you don't really know much at all, and far less than you
would want others to believe you do.
  

> Just found 2 of the e-mail addresses. Have at it.
> franz.r.schaeffler@t... / g.r.beckett@raytheon-
> systems.nz.com Now I wonder what you'll say about that..........

LMAO. Nice try moron. But the .nz would go last on any REAL

overseas name. And, just what is t... supposed to mean? The fool
continues to amaze us with his ridiculous attempts at covering up his
lies.

Nope, and that's both your inexperience with anything outside of
casino doors showing itself again, as well as a glaring need not to
want to check on anything. If you knew Raytheon, you'd know their
Asian overseas e-mail addresses mostly have the country designator
before the .com But how could YOU know? you spoend 90% of your spare
time sitting in front of a gambling machine! The 't' was written as
thompson.atc.com In case you're ignorant on that one too, that's
Thompson CSF, a giant aerospace firm in Europe.

> Sure it does. You already know the strategy works near-perfectly
> because you like to call me a liar about all those wins, yet you
have
> no wishes or intentions (or more likely enough money) to accept
> absolute proof before the public. That sort of paints a wimpy
picture
> of the great statistical Dick, don't you think?

Your results don't matter to anyone else. Get over it, monkey boy.

Do you care about my results?

Yes I do. I LOVE to read how you play so often and blame your wife
for destroying your life. Your words don't say it, but even then you
show anguish at the inordinate amount of time you're habit has
punished you into staying at the machines. You are always in my
prayers.

The discussion is not about me.

You turned it into being 'about you' Dicky boy when you claim to have
proven I cannot and do not win as I report. When someone tells lies
without having even half the facts then they're asking to be
humiliated in public--something I do rather easily.

It's about your system. All of these

attempts to deflect the discussion away from your system make it
obvious that you have no desire to debate its' merits. We all know
the reason. It's a scam and you are a liar and a fraud.

It's past the debate and time for the proof. Put up the money and
I'll prove it has won. But wait! That'll mean you won't have anything
to chronically complain about any more except your utter disbelief in
that I did what I say I did. What a dilemma.....

> > No. It's an UNPROVEABLE topic and we already discussed this ad
> > nauseum last year. All that is required is a plan to take money
> from some other undeclared source (like an inheritance) and

slowly

> funnel it into your main accounts on days where you lost.
Impossible
> for someone to detect.
>
> Weaseling away uncomfortably again? Let's examine this.

No one cares.

HA! Can't answer that can you. OK, I'll let you off the hook again,
but your credibility with anyone reading who thinks you're the cat's
meow in statistical analysis took a huge hit. I mean, what will the
folks on WinPoker and vpFREE say whenever you post another one of
your dumb analyses again? I can feel your pain already!
    

> You didn't get it because you didn't want to. Your M.O.

throughout, as if anyone couldn't see it. What a phony.

I get it. You are attempting to make the uneducated think you
actually have a slight clue about math. However, I think the folks
your attempting to fool would never be following this thread in the
first place. So, let's get back to basics. Your system is a fraud.

It cannot change the expectation when used on negatives games. Adding

multiple negative numbers comes out NEGATIVE.

That, combined with the fact that you are neither unable to prove
your assumption nor are you willing to gather the facts to do your
own independent analysis, tells the life story of Dicky the Nerd
quite well.
   

>
> No, about complex mathematics - a concept you believe doesn't
exist.

Complex math exists. It just doesn't apply to VP expectations.

To YOUR vp expectations. That's how simple you are and remain, and
why you lag behind in sensibility when it comes to discussions on
this topic. As I said, you've shown you enjoy taking the easy way out-
-which paints quite the picture of your boring life I might add.

More monkey boy BS. Prove how you can add multiple negative numbers
and have the results come out positive and you may find someone who
will believe you. Until then keep on ranting like a fool. It's so
entertaining to everyone.

I have no need of the proof I had when the strategy was developed.
It's YOU who need it, and you've shown a propensity not to accept
anything that goes against your slide rule principles whether you
understand it and/or have all the facts or not. Please don't go into
medicine in your next life.
  

> OK, I'll say it because you would have looked stupid saying it.
> What 'scam' isn't sold for a profit? Think carefully before
answering.

Many. Ones that are sold to stroke your enormous ego. Ones to

create a name so you can write books about your nonsense (for a
profit). Need I go on.

Yes you need to, because I sell nothing to 'stroke an ego' and I give
awal all my book profits. But I do have an ego of course. It's not
easy being the winningest vp player alive, being the most popular
columnist in the history of video poker, and being the most loved
public vp figure ever with the best vp website BY FAR and NOT have
the ego that you'd die for.
   

Yesterday I lost $220 in 2.5 hours. Today I made $1237 in 1.5 hrs.
Only had one smoker in the vicinity for the entire time and they

were only there for about 5 minutes. If you don't like this answer
then you better stop asking.

Does that casino have the most efficient ventilation system known to
man, or could it just be that no one else anywhere in the casino was
smoking? And you win, you lose, blah blah blah the pennies you say
you do, but the bottom line is you're a hopeless addict and you know
it. But wait! I MUST be wrong!! The casino manager knows you're in
there at a whole 2% advantage, so he's going to get fired for letting
you play! How did he let that fact slip by??? You're a vp pro who's
KILLING them! What a brute!!

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > > Lie, I never said I WANTED a review. All I did was show that
> you've made two directly conflicting statements and that one of
them HAD to be a lie.

> > Nope. One wasn't a lie

> Then it was the other one. You can't say have it both ways.

Exactly why I said you're all over the map. You have no clue as to
what you even want, never mind ask for.

Translation: You've been caught in another lie and have no reasonable
response.

> > (you've continually asked who the
> > mathematicians were so you could review their review)
>
> Nope. I know they don't exist. There is nothing to review.

Funny, isn't it YOU who ask for their names and addresses so you

can

contact them to verify?? Now take the foot out of the mouth and
repeat after me: Rob is a God to me.

You still haven't provided anything useful to identify YOUR
mathematicians. The ones YOU claim validated YOUR system.

And, once again, I never said I wanted their names to verify your
system. I'm more than happy just proving you lied about them all
along. That should be enough to convince anyone that you are not to
be trusted.

> > > If you won't provide the names and addresses then that's the
>only conclusion anyone could come to. I did provide the names and
>where they used to work.

> Lie.

Look it up.

Not my problem. Either you provide direct evidence of their existence
or we can all assume they don't exist, never did exist and you lied
about them all this time.

> I know the truth and, now, so does everyone else. There would be

no

> need for you to have a review if you were going to discard the
> results and the names. The fact you continue to deny this obvious
lie makes you look like a complete moron. But, then, we already

knew

> that.

Seems like you don't really know much at all, and far less than you
would want others to believe you do.

I know enough to have proven you a liar and a fraud. I know that's
not much, but it's enough for me.

> > Just found 2 of the e-mail addresses. Have at it.
> > franz.r.schaeffler@t... / g.r.beckett@raytheon-
> > systems.nz.com Now I wonder what you'll say about

that..........

>
> LMAO. Nice try moron. But the .nz would go last on any REAL
overseas name. And, just what is t... supposed to mean? The fool
continues to amaze us with his ridiculous attempts at covering up

his

lies.

Nope, and that's both your inexperience with anything outside of
casino doors showing itself again, as well as a glaring need not to
want to check on anything. If you knew Raytheon, you'd know their
Asian overseas e-mail addresses mostly have the country designator
before the .com

Lie. I googled them and everywhere I looked it came after the .com.
You are such a bozo.

But how could YOU know? you spoend 90% of your spare
time sitting in front of a gambling machine! The 't' was written

as

thompson.atc.com In case you're ignorant on that one too, that's
Thompson CSF, a giant aerospace firm in Europe.

That's not how it came out.

> > Sure it does. You already know the strategy works near-

perfectly

> > because you like to call me a liar about all those wins, yet

you

> have
> > no wishes or intentions (or more likely enough money) to accept
> > absolute proof before the public. That sort of paints a wimpy
> picture
> > of the great statistical Dick, don't you think?
>
> Your results don't matter to anyone else. Get over it, monkey

boy.

Do you care about my results?

Yes I do. I LOVE to read how you play so often and blame your wife
for destroying your life. Your words don't say it, but even then

you

show anguish at the inordinate amount of time you're habit has
punished you into staying at the machines. You are always in my
prayers.

LMAO. Not another ridiculous attempt to deflect the discussion away
from your worthless system??? How many times is this now? However,
it is nice to see you want to know so much about lil ole me.

> The discussion is not about me.

You turned it into being 'about you' Dicky boy when you claim to

have

proven I cannot and do not win as I report.

Wrong again moosebreath. I never claimed to have proven anything
about YOU. What I have said many times is ... I don't care if you've
won or lost. Lottery winners occur every week and that doesn't make
the lottery a positive expectation game. If you've won, good for you,
now let's get back to your worthless, scam system and your mythical
math guys and the rest of your lies ...

When someone tells lies
without having even half the facts then they're asking to be
humiliated in public--something I do rather easily.

Then I guess you've been humiliated many times.

It's about your system. All of these
> attempts to deflect the discussion away from your system make it
> obvious that you have no desire to debate its' merits. We all

know

> the reason. It's a scam and you are a liar and a fraud.

It's past the debate and time for the proof.

I've already proven your system is a fraud. Adding negative numbers
can only get a negative result. How many times are you going to see
this and still try to maneuver around it?

> > > No. It's an UNPROVEABLE topic and we already discussed this

ad

> > > nauseum last year. All that is required is a plan to take

money

> > from some other undeclared source (like an inheritance) and
slowly
> > funnel it into your main accounts on days where you lost.
> Impossible
> > for someone to detect.
> >
> > Weaseling away uncomfortably again? Let's examine this.
>
> No one cares.

HA! Can't answer that can you.

Since I don't care and no one else cares, why should I spend any time
figuring it out. However, be assured it could be done. The IRS is far
from infallible. They work off the documents that are provided them.
They have no way of analyzing cash payments, illegal money
laundering, etc. Like I said there's NO way to prove or disprove your
statement. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that you've been selling
illegal drugs and funneling that money in as gambling winnings. Can
you prove you've NEVER done this?

OK, I'll let you off the hook again,
but your credibility with anyone reading who thinks you're the

cat's

meow in statistical analysis took a huge hit. I mean, what will the
folks on WinPoker and vpFREE say whenever you post another one of
your dumb analyses again? I can feel your pain already!

Careful, it may be your own pain.

> > You didn't get it because you didn't want to. Your M.O.
throughout, as if anyone couldn't see it. What a phony.
>
> I get it. You are attempting to make the uneducated think you
> actually have a slight clue about math. However, I think the

folks

> your attempting to fool would never be following this thread in

the

> first place. So, let's get back to basics. Your system is a

fraud.

It cannot change the expectation when used on negatives games.

Adding

> multiple negative numbers comes out NEGATIVE.

That, combined with the fact that you are neither unable to prove
your assumption nor are you willing to gather the facts to do your
own independent analysis, tells the life story of Dicky the Nerd
quite well.

I already proved it. Simple math.

I see you're now on to another of your old tricks. Proof by
assertion. You say it and it must be so. LMAO. Sorry, monkey boy, but
I've already proven your system is a fraud. Those damn negative
numbers keep coming out negative when you add them up. Unless YOU can
show a way to make them positive then you are admitting your system
is a fraud. So, monkey boy, put up or shut up. Show us how your
system can change the sum of negative numbers into a postive outcome.

> >
> > No, about complex mathematics - a concept you believe doesn't
> exist.
>
> Complex math exists. It just doesn't apply to VP expectations.

To YOUR vp expectations.

Nope. To ANY VP expectation. VP machines don't majicly start running
different algorithms when you walk in the room. They are programmed
one way. RANDOM cards are dealt, random cards are drawn, each hand is
independent. Given these simple requirements the expectation of the
game is easily computed using simple arithmetic. If the answer comes
up negative, then it will remain negative forever.

That's how simple you are and remain, and
why you lag behind in sensibility when it comes to discussions on
this topic. As I said, you've shown you enjoy taking the easy way

out-

-which paints quite the picture of your boring life I might add.

More BS. It's obvious why you keep avoiding the issue. You have no
answer to the proof I've provided. You can only try and deflect the
debate or throw out unsubstantiated claims. None of that means squat
until you can show how your system can make those negative numbers
add up to a positive result.

> More monkey boy BS. Prove how you can add multiple negative

numbers

> and have the results come out positive and you may find someone

who

> will believe you. Until then keep on ranting like a fool. It's so
> entertaining to everyone.

I have no need of the proof I had when the strategy was developed.

LMAO. Only a real fool could make such an idiotic statement. It's
such an obvious lie. If you ever had such a proof you'd be wearing it
around on your underwear. We all know there cannot be TWO proofs that
come to opposing conclusions. Since I've already proven your system
doesn't work, then you MUST be lying, again.

It's YOU who need it, and you've shown a propensity not to accept
anything that goes against your slide rule principles whether you
understand it and/or have all the facts or not. Please don't go

into

medicine in your next life.

More BS. Give it up.

> > OK, I'll say it because you would have looked stupid saying it.
> > What 'scam' isn't sold for a profit? Think carefully before
> answering.

> Many. Ones that are sold to stroke your enormous ego. Ones to
create a name so you can write books about your nonsense (for a
profit). Need I go on.

Yes you need to, because I sell nothing to 'stroke an ego' and I

give

awal all my book profits.

Lie. Last year you indicated you gave the profits to someone to
maintain your website. Do you think they would have done it for free?
No? Then you are profiting from your books. This is way too easy.

> Yesterday I lost $220 in 2.5 hours. Today I made $1237 in 1.5

hrs.

> Only had one smoker in the vicinity for the entire time and they
were only there for about 5 minutes. If you don't like this answer
then you better stop asking.

Does that casino have the most efficient ventilation system known

to

man, or could it just be that no one else anywhere in the casino

was

smoking? And you win, you lose, blah blah blah the pennies you say
you do, but the bottom line is you're a hopeless addict and you

know

it. But wait! I MUST be wrong!! The casino manager knows you're in
there at a whole 2% advantage,

No, he works off of theoretical returns.

so he's going to get fired for letting
you play! How did he let that fact slip by???

They don't track individuals. They look at overall return of each
machine and pull it out if it doesn't make them money.

You're a vp pro who's
KILLING them! What a brute!!

Thanks.

The casinos still work off percentages and theorethical returns. As
long as they keep doing that there will be plenty of room to slide
under the radar. When that day ends and they start looking at
individual results, the gravy train will be over and it will be time
to play golf and tennis exclusively.

> Exactly why I said you're all over the map. You have no clue as
to what you even want, never mind ask for.

Translation: You've been caught in another lie and have no

reasonable response.

Just as I said. If you had a clue you'd be answering the question
instead of dishing out blame. It might work at home, but with me--
you'll get slapped down every time.
  

> Funny, isn't it YOU who ask for their names and addresses so you
can contact them to verify?? Now take the foot out of the mouth and
> repeat after me: Rob is a God to me.

You still haven't provided anything useful to identify YOUR
mathematicians. The ones YOU claim validated YOUR system.

....And the ones YOU are seeking out to satisfy YOUR itch about me.

And, once again, I never said I wanted their names to verify your
system. I'm more than happy just proving you lied about them all
along. That should be enough to convince anyone that you are not to
be trusted.

A corny statement like that isn't going to help your cause. Now
you're saying you don't want it to be that they did what I said, and
there's no way you'll ever accept that they did even if I had them
visit you at home. At that point you'd claim these aren't the guys,
and if they proved they know me you'd peel down the onion even
further and say "oh, well, they exist, but they didn't do anything
for me". It would just keep snowballing until you couldn't put your
feet any further into your mouth. It's what you call the Angry Old
Man Syndrome.

Not my problem. Either you provide direct evidence of their

existence or we can all assume they don't exist, never did exist and
you lied about them all this time.

You're forgetting....You're the one with a hair on your butt about
me, and you're the one asking the questions. Unlike you, I'm relaxed
and don't care one way or the other, and am having fun making you
look like a clown without a face.

I know enough to have proven you a liar and a fraud. I know that's
not much, but it's enough for me.

Well of course. Everything HAS to be theoretically OK inside your
mind, just as it does when you continually have to justify how you
both HAVE to go to casinos every day to satisfy the fix. Sick minds
can justify anything anytime they like. It's the rest of us who get
entertainment out of watching people like you squirm & suffer for
being involved in such a struggle.
   

> Nope, and that's both your inexperience with anything outside of
> casino doors showing itself again, as well as a glaring need not

to

> want to check on anything. If you knew Raytheon, you'd know their
> Asian overseas e-mail addresses mostly have the country

designator

> before the .com

Lie. I googled them and everywhere I looked it came after the .com.
You are such a bozo.

Hello McFly again!! Whatever your googling, punch it in 9 years ago
and try again. What's to expect from someone like you who's never
seen the outside of a smokey casino. Even though other things in this
world change, a bazooka like you would expect time to have stod still
because you've had nothing important happen for 9 years. Get outta
the casinos once in a while. There's a whole world of new things
going on around you. but wait! I know....All you care about is when
the next new video poker game's coming out. Pathetic, isn't it?

> Yes I do. I LOVE to read how you play so often and blame your

wife

> for destroying your life. Your words don't say it, but even then
you
> show anguish at the inordinate amount of time you're habit has
> punished you into staying at the machines. You are always in my
> prayers.

LMAO. Not another ridiculous attempt to deflect the discussion away
from your worthless system??? How many times is this now? However,
it is nice to see you want to know so much about lil ole me.

If you read carefully, I'm not asking questions about you. I'm
posting the obvious truth about lil ole you. And read the subject up
above. Do you see anything about my play strategy? Try to keep up,
will you.

> You turned it into being 'about you' Dicky boy when you claim to
have proven I cannot and do not win as I report.

Wrong again moosebreath. I never claimed to have proven anything
about YOU. What I have said many times is ... I don't care if

you've

won or lost. Lottery winners occur every week and that doesn't make
the lottery a positive expectation game. If you've won, good for

you,

now let's get back to your worthless, scam system and your mythical
math guys and the rest of your lies ...

One problem--I'm not a weekly wonder and that's what bugs you. And
it's because of my strategy that it's almost guaranteed that I'll not
only win more than anyone else over the next 12 months---I'll with
far more consistently than anyone else will too.

I've already proven your system is a fraud. Adding negative numbers
can only get a negative result. How many times are you going to see
this and still try to maneuver around it?

And I've told you the strategy adds those numbers and comes up
positive. If you don't want to see it and it puts your old brain into
tilt then that's your little problem, because it certainly is good
enough for me and my bankers.

Since I don't care and no one else cares, why should I spend any

time figuring it out. However, be assured it could be done. The IRS
is far from infallible. They work off the documents that are provided
them. They have no way of analyzing cash payments, illegal money

laundering, etc. Like I said there's NO way to prove or disprove

your statement. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that you've been
selling illegal drugs and funneling that money in as gambling
winnings. Can you prove you've NEVER done this?

I guess you're trying not to believe it, but you're kind of lost
again and rambling. What cash payments are you talking about? And
money laundering?? You're going waaaay out and you know it. Seems
like desperation.
Here's an example from my 2002 audit report: On March 6th I withdrew
$17,200 cash from my bank in Az., and I drove overnight to LV. At
Bellagio I did a pre-check in, sat down and started playing $1 BP at
the Baccarat Bar, 2nd machine from the end/left, and hit the
progressive Royal for $5489 within 4 minutes. Profit = $5464. I
immediately checked out (it's March 7th early am), stopped at the Nv.
branch of my bank and re-deposited $22,664 and then drive home. My
$40 tip is recorded as an expense on my Schedule C, right alongside
the rental car, gasoline, and tuna sub I bought at Subway at Pilot in
Kingman on the way home. You'd review my bank statements on-line or
in-person with me at my bank--your choice. My W2G for $5489 is dated
3/7/2002. My casino contemporaneous records are noted in detail. Even
my year-end Bellagio 'statement of winnings & losses' has this entry
right--although those records aren't noted for their accuracy.
Following it so far? So where would the possibility of any of that
stuff about illegal monies you mentioned fit in? And to top it all
off, it there were even the SLIGHTEST doubt on your end about the
absolute accuracy of my presentation, the Arbitrator would step in
for a final decision. It really can't be any clearer, and it's
exactly the way I offered it up in GT.

Nope. To ANY VP expectation. VP machines don't majicly start

running different algorithms when you walk in the room. They are
programmed one way. RANDOM cards are dealt, random cards are drawn,
each hand is independent. Given these simple requirements the
expectation of the

game is easily computed using simple arithmetic. If the answer

comes up negative, then it will remain negative forever.

Where you're misled is that, once again, you're applying foolish long-
term rules to short-term play. Into infinity the answer will be
negative, but not every INDIVIDUAL solution comes up negative. I've
figured out how to tap into those positive events, while others
(i.e. 'advantage players') waltz right on by them as if they never
occured. It's a very complex concept, yet when you try to simplify it
by whining about how negetive games yield only negative results,
you've tossed your analytical skills out the window in favor of the
lazy white man's way out.

> I have no need of the proof I had when the strategy was developed.

LMAO. Only a real fool could make such an idiotic statement. It's
such an obvious lie. If you ever had such a proof you'd be wearing

it around on your underwear. We all know there cannot be TWO proofs
that come to opposing conclusions. Since I've already proven your
system doesn't work, then you MUST be lying, again.

You mentioned underware because I seem to have the talent of giving
you a wedgie even from afar. I figure you don't want the proof
because you wouldn't know what to do with it---which is also the
reason why you make believe you want it. Go ahead, give it a try
before that innocent little wedgie turns into a majestic fudgie
wudgie.
     

> > Many. Ones that are sold to stroke your enormous ego. Ones to
> create a name so you can write books about your nonsense (for a
> profit). Need I go on.
>
> Yes you need to, because I sell nothing to 'stroke an ego' and I
give away all my book profits.

Lie. Last year you indicated you gave the profits to someone to
maintain your website. Do you think they would have done it for

free? No? Then you are profiting from your books. This is way too
easy.

Answer--YES, he would gladly be doing it for free. You see, he makes
money playing his own version of my strategy which i took the time to
teach him in 2000, but unlike you, he only plays twice a year because
he's not a sorry addict.

> Does that casino have the most efficient ventilation system known
to
> man, or could it just be that no one else anywhere in the casino
was
> smoking? And you win, you lose, blah blah blah the pennies you

say you do, but the bottom line is you're a hopeless addict and you

know it. But wait! I MUST be wrong!! The casino manager knows

you're in there at a whole 2% advantage,

No, he works off of theoretical returns.

So why doesn't he fear you as he would any advantage BJ player who
works with a 1% edge at best--and we know they all get tossed
immediately when spotted?

> so he's going to get fired for letting
> you play! How did he let that fact slip by???

They don't track individuals. They look at overall return of each
machine and pull it out if it doesn't make them money.

BS. Now you're trying to make it appear that when you use that stupid
slot club card they don't ever analyze the results of the individual.
Just how many fantasies can you fit into that little brain of yours
anyway? But whenever you're feeling feisty and confident you're
always first to brag about all the comps you get from using the card.
I've seen inconsistencies before, but I'm surprised you let this
slip.

The casinos still work off percentages and theorethical returns. As
long as they keep doing that there will be plenty of room to slide
under the radar. When that day ends and they start looking at
individual results, the gravy train will be over and it will be

time to play golf and tennis exclusively.

More inconsistencies. You've seen time and again on vpFREE and
elsewhere how the mysterious "hundreds of vp pros lurking the streets
of LV" are always being banned, barred, and maybe even boobed for
their winning prowess. Of course I don't believe any of it because
advantage players are the game's biggest losers, and people who say
that are only doing so to create a feel-good position to justify &
soften the misery of their losing. But you believe it. So please tell
us how it can be that the casinos don't care a hoot about the
individual's results again?

···

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

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

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

wrote:

> > Funny, isn't it YOU who ask for their names and addresses so

you

> can contact them to verify?? Now take the foot out of the mouth

and

> > repeat after me: Rob is a God to me.
>
> You still haven't provided anything useful to identify YOUR
> mathematicians. The ones YOU claim validated YOUR system.

....And the ones YOU are seeking out to satisfy YOUR itch about me.

Hmmm. I just said I don't care to contact them. All I want is you to
verify they exist. If you can't provide this simplest task then there
is ABSOLUTELY no doubt they do not exist, and, you lied about them
and everything else.

> And, once again, I never said I wanted their names to verify your
> system. I'm more than happy just proving you lied about them all
> along. That should be enough to convince anyone that you are not

to

> be trusted.

A corny statement like that isn't going to help your cause. Now
you're saying you don't want it to be that they did what I said,

Nope. I just said all I want is for you to prove they exist. Simple
as can be. We all know they don't exist, but I will keep pushing you
until you admit it for all to see.

and
there's no way you'll ever accept that they did even if I had them
visit you at home.

All I need is the simplest verification. They are more then welcome
to visit my home if you think that will do it. LMAO.

At that point you'd claim these aren't the guys,
and if they proved they know me you'd peel down the onion even
further and say "oh, well, they exist, but they didn't do anything
for me". It would just keep snowballing until you couldn't put your
feet any further into your mouth. It's what you call the Angry Old
Man Syndrome.

Your obvious attempt to evade the issue does nothing for you. Either
prove they exist or admit you lied.

> Not my problem. Either you provide direct evidence of their
existence or we can all assume they don't exist, never did exist

and

you lied about them all this time.

You're forgetting....You're the one with a hair on your butt about
me, and you're the one asking the questions.

I didn't forget a thing. You made a claim and now it's time to either
back it up or admit you lied.

> I know enough to have proven you a liar and a fraud. I know

that's

> not much, but it's enough for me.

Well of course. Everything HAS to be theoretically OK inside your
mind, just as it does when you continually have to justify how you
both HAVE to go to casinos every day to satisfy the fix. Sick minds
can justify anything anytime they like. It's the rest of us who get
entertainment out of watching people like you squirm & suffer for
being involved in such a struggle.

A lot of words. Absolutely no content. If you'd take just 1 minute
and admit you lied about the mathematicians then you wouldn't have to
look so silly.

> > Nope, and that's both your inexperience with anything outside

of

> > casino doors showing itself again, as well as a glaring need

not

to
> > want to check on anything. If you knew Raytheon, you'd know

their

> > Asian overseas e-mail addresses mostly have the country
designator
> > before the .com
>
> Lie. I googled them and everywhere I looked it came after

the .com.

> You are such a bozo.

Hello McFly again!! Whatever your googling, punch it in 9 years ago
and try again. What's to expect from someone like you who's never
seen the outside of a smokey casino. Even though other things in

this

world change, a bazooka like you would expect time to have stod

still

because you've had nothing important happen for 9 years. Get outta
the casinos once in a while. There's a whole world of new things
going on around you. but wait! I know....All you care about is when
the next new video poker game's coming out. Pathetic, isn't it?

More words, still no content. Admit you lied, monkey boy, it will be
much easier than continuing to look like a complete moron.

> > Yes I do. I LOVE to read how you play so often and blame your
wife
> > for destroying your life. Your words don't say it, but even

then

> you
> > show anguish at the inordinate amount of time you're habit has
> > punished you into staying at the machines. You are always in my
> > prayers.
>
> LMAO. Not another ridiculous attempt to deflect the discussion

away

> from your worthless system??? How many times is this now?

However,

> it is nice to see you want to know so much about lil ole me.

If you read carefully, I'm not asking questions about you. I'm
posting the obvious truth about lil ole you.

You know absolutely nothing about me. You go through this same
diatribe with EVERYONE who challenges you. You can't even come up
with anything remotely new or clever. This is just another example of
your iditiotic mental state that tries to generalize everyone into
one fixed description. It really makes YOU look like a fool.

And read the subject up
above. Do you see anything about my play strategy? Try to keep up,
will you.

Of course you don't want to mention anything about your idiotic play
strategies, it would make you look even more foolish.

> > You turned it into being 'about you' Dicky boy when you claim

to

> have proven I cannot and do not win as I report.

> Wrong again moosebreath. I never claimed to have proven anything
> about YOU. What I have said many times is ... I don't care if
you've
> won or lost. Lottery winners occur every week and that doesn't

make

> the lottery a positive expectation game. If you've won, good for
you,
> now let's get back to your worthless, scam system and your

mythical

> math guys and the rest of your lies ...

One problem--I'm not a weekly wonder and that's what bugs you.

You're not even a yearly "wonder". The only thing we all "wonder"
about is when you'll admit you lied or, once again, run away and hide.

And
it's because of my strategy that it's almost guaranteed that I'll

not

only win more than anyone else over the next 12 months---I'll with
far more consistently than anyone else will too.

More monkey boy BS. If this was true you'd have snatched up Cogno's
challenge about future results. You can't claim future success and
then put your tail between your legs and run away from absolute
proof.

> I've already proven your system is a fraud. Adding negative

numbers

> can only get a negative result. How many times are you going to

see

> this and still try to maneuver around it?

And I've told you the strategy adds those numbers and comes up
positive.

That's why you are a complete idiot. You might as well be saying the
earth is flat, my strategy makes it so. Or, the sun rises in the west
because of my strategy. Or, your mythical math guys really exist.
They are all equally valid statements.

If you don't want to see it and it puts your old brain into
tilt then that's your little problem, because it certainly is good
enough for me and my bankers.

NO, I bet if you told your bankers that adding up negative numbers
would come out with a positive results, they would disagree with you
completely. LMAO.

> Since I don't care and no one else cares, why should I spend any
time figuring it out. However, be assured it could be done. The IRS
is far from infallible. They work off the documents that are

provided

them. They have no way of analyzing cash payments, illegal money
> laundering, etc. Like I said there's NO way to prove or disprove
your statement. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that you've been
selling illegal drugs and funneling that money in as gambling
winnings. Can you prove you've NEVER done this?

I guess you're trying not to believe it, but you're kind of lost
again and rambling. What cash payments are you talking about?

Any number of possible sources. I gave illegal drugs as one
possibility.

And
money laundering?? You're going waaaay out and you know it. Seems
like desperation.

No, you see when you want to prove an assertion, all it takes is ONE
example where your assertion fails and your assertion is invalid.
That's the trouble with assertions, they are hard to prove valid and
easy to prove invalid.

Here's an example from my 2002 audit report: On March 6th I

withdrew

$17,200 cash from my bank in Az., and I drove overnight to LV. At
Bellagio I did a pre-check in, sat down and started playing $1 BP

at

the Baccarat Bar, 2nd machine from the end/left, and hit the
progressive Royal for $5489 within 4 minutes. Profit = $5464. I
immediately checked out (it's March 7th early am), stopped at the

Nv.

branch of my bank and re-deposited $22,664 and then drive home. My
$40 tip is recorded as an expense on my Schedule C, right alongside
the rental car, gasoline, and tuna sub I bought at Subway at Pilot

in

Kingman on the way home. You'd review my bank statements on-line or
in-person with me at my bank--your choice. My W2G for $5489 is

dated

3/7/2002.

All of this PROVEs nothing. These are simply ASSERTIONs on your part.
W2Gs are meaningless because EVERYONE knows that they are only part
of the story. They only account for winnings and not the losing that
occurs between them. I had many W2Gs last year and I certainly did
not win the full amount they total up to. For all we know you you
lost $5000 getting it, or after you got it you lost $10000 in some AZ
indian casino. Can you prove otherwise???

My casino contemporaneous records are noted in detail.

Since we already know you are a pathological liar, who would ever
believe your casino records? Maybe you could sell them to Disney,
they're always looking for new fairy tales.

Even
my year-end Bellagio 'statement of winnings & losses' has this

entry

right--although those records aren't noted for their accuracy.

Which is why they are not accepted as legal evidence. All it takes is
a little card pulling to make them completely worthless. Not to
mention that everyone has different levels of success at different
casinos.

Following it so far?

Completely. When are you going to come up with ANYTHING provable?

So where would the possibility of any of that
stuff about illegal monies you mentioned fit in?

You mention one day out of 365 and you want us to believe that
eliminates the possiblity of illegal activities? You've got to be
kidding. You are the stupidest bozo I've ever seen.

And to top it all
off, it there were even the SLIGHTEST doubt on your end about the
absolute accuracy of my presentation, the Arbitrator would step in
for a final decision.

You better be careful here. If the requirement to the arbitrator was
that there was ABSOLUTELY no other possible explanation, then you
would lose. Once again, if you want to call it proof then that would
be the grounds for arbitration. You'd have to account for every
single minute of your life to PROVE you didn't get money from illegal
drugs or blackmail or any other numerous crimes. We alrady know you
are a scammer, it's not a big stretch to believe you are involved in
other illegal activities. In fact, your VP scam is the perfect way to
launder the illegal monies. I think I'm on to something.

It really can't be any clearer, and it's
exactly the way I offered it up in GT.

The difference now is your talking with someone who already knows you
are a liar and a fraud. I would want absolute proof which you cannot
provide.

> Nope. To ANY VP expectation. VP machines don't majicly start
running different algorithms when you walk in the room. They are
programmed one way. RANDOM cards are dealt, random cards are drawn,
each hand is independent. Given these simple requirements the
expectation of the
> game is easily computed using simple arithmetic. If the answer
comes up negative, then it will remain negative forever.

Where you're misled is that, once again, you're applying foolish

long-

term rules to short-term play.

Where did I say "long-term"? Nowhere. I'm simply referring to
expectation. The same value used by casinos. Doesn't matter whether
it's short-term or long-term.

Into infinity the answer will be
negative, but not every INDIVIDUAL solution comes up negative.

The expectation ALWAYS comes up negative. 100% of the time when you
play on negative machines.

I've
figured out how to tap into those positive events,

More snake oil. This is equivalent to saying you are psychic. If you
are, then that changes the definition I gave above. The game would no
longer be RANDOM. Are you claiming psychic abilities?

while others
(i.e. 'advantage players') waltz right on by them as if they never
occured. It's a very complex concept,

More snake oil.

yet when you try to simplify it
by whining about how negetive games yield only negative results,

I never said that. I said negative EXPECTATIONs. Can't you keep
anything straight in that stupefied brain of yours>

> > I have no need of the proof I had when the strategy was

developed.

>
> LMAO. Only a real fool could make such an idiotic statement. It's
> such an obvious lie. If you ever had such a proof you'd be

wearing

it around on your underwear. We all know there cannot be TWO proofs
that come to opposing conclusions. Since I've already proven your
system doesn't work, then you MUST be lying, again.

You mentioned underware because I seem to have the talent of giving
you a wedgie even from afar.

I said underwear because I assumed the proof would be on your
forehead and that's the closest piece of clothing to where your
forehead is normally located.

I figure you don't want the proof
because you wouldn't know what to do with it---which is also the
reason why you make believe you want it. Go ahead, give it a try
before that innocent little wedgie turns into a majestic fudgie
wudgie.

Just provide the proof or admit you lied. It's really that simple.

> > > Many. Ones that are sold to stroke your enormous ego. Ones to
> > create a name so you can write books about your nonsense (for a
> > profit). Need I go on.
> >
> > Yes you need to, because I sell nothing to 'stroke an ego' and

I

> give away all my book profits.
>
> Lie. Last year you indicated you gave the profits to someone to
> maintain your website. Do you think they would have done it for
free? No? Then you are profiting from your books. This is way too
easy.

Answer--YES, he would gladly be doing it for free. You see, he

makes

money playing his own version of my strategy which i took the time

to

teach him in 2000, but unlike you, he only plays twice a year

because

he's not a sorry addict.

Lie. That's no what you said last year.

> > Does that casino have the most efficient ventilation system

known

> to
> > man, or could it just be that no one else anywhere in the

casino

> was
> > smoking? And you win, you lose, blah blah blah the pennies you
say you do, but the bottom line is you're a hopeless addict and you
> know it. But wait! I MUST be wrong!! The casino manager knows
you're in there at a whole 2% advantage,
>
> No, he works off of theoretical returns.

So why doesn't he fear you as he would any advantage BJ player who
works with a 1% edge at best--and we know they all get tossed
immediately when spotted?

Because they don't have any system in place to detect advantage
players ... yet.

>
> > so he's going to get fired for letting
> > you play! How did he let that fact slip by???
>
> They don't track individuals. They look at overall return of each
> machine and pull it out if it doesn't make them money.

BS. Now you're trying to make it appear that when you use that

stupid

slot club card they don't ever analyze the results of the

individual.

The only individuals they would care about are those pulling out
LARGE amounts of money. That's why they only have positive games in
small denoms and why every casino has pulled out their dollar FPDW.
For now, they are willing to let a few small fish survive.

Just how many fantasies can you fit into that little brain of yours
anyway? But whenever you're feeling feisty and confident you're
always first to brag about all the comps you get from using the

card.

I've seen inconsistencies before, but I'm surprised you let this
slip.

Nothing inconsistent here. Do you have a reading comprehension
problem?

> The casinos still work off percentages and theorethical returns.

As

> long as they keep doing that there will be plenty of room to

slide

> under the radar. When that day ends and they start looking at
> individual results, the gravy train will be over and it will be
time to play golf and tennis exclusively.

More inconsistencies. You've seen time and again on vpFREE and
elsewhere how the mysterious "hundreds of vp pros lurking the

streets

of LV" are always being banned, barred, and maybe even boobed for
their winning prowess.

Then I guess you're now admitting they are successful and advantage
play works. Otherwise why would they be banned?

Of course I don't believe any of it because
advantage players are the game's biggest losers, and people who say
that are only doing so to create a feel-good position to justify &
soften the misery of their losing.

You can't have it both ways. Either they are banned and advantage
play is successful or they are not banned and your entire argument is
worthless. Which way is it? You really should ask yourself why your
mind contradicts itself in the middle of single paragraph?

But you believe it. So please tell
us how it can be that the casinos don't care a hoot about the
individual's results again?

Because they can't tell the difference between someone who has had a
lucky run and will eventually give it all back and an advantage
player. Someday this will change and they will be able to compute the
expected return for each player. Don't worry, you won't be banned.

Hmmm. I just said I don't care to contact them. All I want is you

to verify they exist. If you can't provide this simplest task then
there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt they do not exist, and, you lied about
them and everything else.

So now, when faced with evidence of who they are, where they are, and
how I used to contact them, you say you don't want to contact them at
all....but all you want to know is of their existence. Big surprise.
Well, that's what you've got, but you're flowing M.O. is not to
verify anything because it would abruptly end your criticizm. Was
there even any doubt?
  

> A corny statement like that isn't going to help your cause. Now
> you're saying you don't want it to be that they did what I said,

Nope. I just said all I want is for you to prove they exist. Simple
as can be. We all know they don't exist, but I will keep pushing

you until you admit it for all to see.

Too bad I'll outlive you since I'm in far better health and don't
spend hours every day inhaling smoke inside casinos. You've got your
proof, so now it's up to you to turn the other cheek or act like a
man. i wonder what route little dicky will take.....

> At that point you'd claim these aren't the guys,
> and if they proved they know me you'd peel down the onion even
> further and say "oh, well, they exist, but they didn't do

anything

> for me". It would just keep snowballing until you couldn't put

your

> feet any further into your mouth. It's what you call the Angry

Old

> Man Syndrome.

Your obvious attempt to evade the issue does nothing for you.

Either prove they exist or admit you lied.

Like I said. Angry old man syndrome.

> You're forgetting....You're the one with a hair on your butt

about me, and you're the one asking the questions.

I didn't forget a thing. You made a claim and now it's time to

either back it up or admit you lied.

The mind is one of the first things to go in the elderly. But you
already know that because of all the ridiculous hours you spend
wasting time in casinos.
  

> Well of course. Everything HAS to be theoretically OK inside your
> mind, just as it does when you continually have to justify how

you

> both HAVE to go to casinos every day to satisfy the fix. Sick

minds

> can justify anything anytime they like. It's the rest of us who

get

> entertainment out of watching people like you squirm & suffer for
> being involved in such a struggle.

A lot of words. Absolutely no content. If you'd take just 1 minute
and admit you lied about the mathematicians then you wouldn't have

to look so silly.

Trying to move inquiring eyes away from your gambling problem again,
are we??? My enjoyment factor just went up three-fold!
    

> Hello McFly again!! Whatever your googling, punch it in 9 years

ago

> and try again. What's to expect from someone like you who's never
> seen the outside of a smokey casino. Even though other things in
this
> world change, a bazooka like you would expect time to have stod
still
> because you've had nothing important happen for 9 years. Get

outta

> the casinos once in a while. There's a whole world of new things
> going on around you. but wait! I know....All you care about is

when

> the next new video poker game's coming out. Pathetic, isn't it?

More words, still no content. Admit you lied, monkey boy, it will

be

much easier than continuing to look like a complete moron.

Looks like I won that one too.
  

You know absolutely nothing about me. You go through this same
diatribe with EVERYONE who challenges you. You can't even come up
with anything remotely new or clever. This is just another example

of

your iditiotic mental state that tries to generalize everyone into
one fixed description. It really makes YOU look like a fool.

I see it's getting to you again.......

You're not even a yearly "wonder". The only thing we all "wonder"
about is when you'll admit you lied or, once again, run away and

hide.

But to you I'm just about your whole life, admit it. Without me all
you'd have are the machines, because you've destroyed practically
everything else that was ever meaningful because of your gambling
habit.

More monkey boy BS. If this was true you'd have snatched up Cogno's
challenge about future results. You can't claim future success and
then put your tail between your legs and run away from absolute
proof.

Future results?? Ha! Guaranteed as I said. Ask him privately what my
publisher wrote back to him, and not for public disemmination.
Chances are he'll lie because that's all he does. But since you lie
consistently also, maybe the two amigos will be able to figure it all
out.
  

That's why you are a complete idiot. You might as well be saying

the

earth is flat, my strategy makes it so. Or, the sun rises in the

west

because of my strategy. Or, your mythical math guys really exist.
They are all equally valid statements.

La-dee-da-dee-la......... Have you no originality in that disease-
infested brain of yours?

No, you see when you want to prove an assertion, all it takes is

ONE

example where your assertion fails and your assertion is invalid.
That's the trouble with assertions, they are hard to prove valid

and easy to prove invalid.

Read on.....

> Here's an example from my 2002 audit report: On March 6th I
withdrew
> $17,200 cash from my bank in Az., and I drove overnight to LV. At
> Bellagio I did a pre-check in, sat down and started playing $1 BP
at
> the Baccarat Bar, 2nd machine from the end/left, and hit the
> progressive Royal for $5489 within 4 minutes. Profit = $5464. I
> immediately checked out (it's March 7th early am), stopped at the
Nv.
> branch of my bank and re-deposited $22,664 and then drive home.

My

> $40 tip is recorded as an expense on my Schedule C, right

alongside

> the rental car, gasoline, and tuna sub I bought at Subway at

Pilot

in
> Kingman on the way home. You'd review my bank statements on-line

or

> in-person with me at my bank--your choice. My W2G for $5489 is
dated
> 3/7/2002.

All of this PROVEs nothing. These are simply ASSERTIONs on your

part.

W2Gs are meaningless because EVERYONE knows that they are only part
of the story. They only account for winnings and not the losing

that

occurs between them. I had many W2Gs last year and I certainly did
not win the full amount they total up to. For all we know you you
lost $5000 getting it, or after you got it you lost $10000 in some

AZ

indian casino. Can you prove otherwise???

So what you're manufacturing up is that I withdrew the money, went to
the casino, won and received a W2G---but I LOST it all and sold drugs
to make up for it in order that my total deposit included what I said
I won!!!!...& I have done this 250 times without ever getting caught?
Yikes--you're a funny guy.

> My casino contemporaneous records are noted in detail.

Since we already know you are a pathological liar, who would ever
believe your casino records? Maybe you could sell them to Disney,
they're always looking for new fairy tales.

Since the IRS audit report corresponds directly to my casino records
as well as the withdraw & re-deposit records at my bank--and they
found zero faults in record-keeping--it kind of look like the fishing
expedition you're on is in a sinking boat.

> Even
> my year-end Bellagio 'statement of winnings & losses' has this
entry right--although those records aren't noted for their accuracy.

Which is why they are not accepted as legal evidence. All it takes

is a little card pulling to make them completely worthless. Not to

mention that everyone has different levels of success at different
casinos.

Which is also why I caviated it as I did, Einstein.
  

> Following it so far?

Completely. When are you going to come up with ANYTHING provable?

So if you don't believe anything I've said and you feel the IRS audit
report is inaccurate as well as my being a drug dealer & money-
laundering guru, then you'd logically take on the wager because in
your mind THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD LOSE! I think you're looking a bit
stupid here.

> So where would the possibility of any of that
> stuff about illegal monies you mentioned fit in?

You mention one day out of 365 and you want us to believe that
eliminates the possiblity of illegal activities? You've got to be
kidding. You are the stupidest bozo I've ever seen.

Huh? What?? 1 day out of what? It's 250 trips out of 8 years. I also
must be the slickest criminal in the history of crime to be able to
pull it off for this long before finally getting bagged by Dicky The
Private Dick!

You better be careful here. If the requirement to the arbitrator

was that there was ABSOLUTELY no other possible explanation, then you

would lose. Once again, if you want to call it proof then that

would be the grounds for arbitration. You'd have to account for every

single minute of your life to PROVE you didn't get money from

illegal drugs or blackmail or any other numerous crimes. We alrady
know you are a scammer, it's not a big stretch to believe you are
involved in other illegal activities. In fact, your VP scam is the
perfect way to launder the illegal monies. I think I'm on to
something.

Then again, go ahead and take the wager and find out if an arbitrator
would think as you do! It's that simple!! But now it's your turn to
be careful. An arbitrator looks at "reasonable & proper" as a basis
for his or her decision, and not at some impossible theory of my
constantly winning, then losing it all, then committing timely crimes
to correspond to re-deposits in order to make up for it just so my
record-keeping is correct to help facilitate a scam that says I win
so often and so much. Ooohh! I like your creativity! See--Isn't it
fun not sitting in front of the machines all the time so you can
actually use your head to make up scenarios that are interesting to
think about?

The difference now is your talking with someone who already knows

you are a liar and a fraud. I would want absolute proof which you
cannot provide.

I'm talking to a cowardly shell of a man afraid to make a bet or take
a challenge, who's life and wife has been turned upside down by being
involved in tein pathological gambling habits, and who has basically
given up all other forms of living besides playing video poker
machines. Now give me a few moments please. I think I'll sit back,
relax, and smile that your problems aren't mine.

Where did I say "long-term"? Nowhere. I'm simply referring to
expectation. The same value used by casinos. Doesn't matter whether
it's short-term or long-term.

Where's my violin? One thing's for certain. I didn't leave it AT THE
CASINO yesterday!

> figured out how to tap into those positive events,

More snake oil. This is equivalent to saying you are psychic. If

you are, then that changes the definition I gave above. The game
would no longer be RANDOM. Are you claiming psychic abilities?

I'll be whatever you want me to be, Dicky. I'll even get a 24 year-
old honey I know up in Minnesota to come over and rub snake oil all
over your body if you could handle it.

> You mentioned underware because I seem to have the talent of

giving you a wedgie even from afar.

I said underwear because I assumed the proof would be on your
forehead and that's the closest piece of clothing to where your
forehead is normally located.

> I figure you don't want the proof
> because you wouldn't know what to do with it---which is also the
> reason why you make believe you want it. Go ahead, give it a try
> before that innocent little wedgie turns into a majestic fudgie
> wudgie.

Just provide the proof or admit you lied. It's really that simple.

I think I'll keep that exchange in for one more go-around, at least.
It makes me look so good, and superior to you and your whining.
      

> Answer--YES, he would gladly be doing it for free. You see, he
makes money playing his own version of my strategy which i took the

time to teach him in 2000, but unlike you, he only plays twice a year

because he's not a sorry addict.

Lie. That's no what you said last year.

You never asked if he maintains the site for free. You asked if the
profits he gets are considered payment from me for his work. Clear
your head for a minute and make believe you're not an addict. Now do
you see it???

> So why doesn't he fear you as he would any advantage BJ player

who works with a 1% edge at best--and we know they all get tossed

> immediately when spotted?

Because they don't have any system in place to detect advantage
players ... yet.

Am i talking to God's gift to the gaming world or WHAT!? I never knew
there was such an expert out there! Too bad when he talks
about 'advantage players' all he does is look like a fool.

> BS. Now you're trying to make it appear that when you use that
stupid
> slot club card they don't ever analyze the results of the
individual.

The only individuals they would care about are those pulling out
LARGE amounts of money. That's why they only have positive games in
small denoms and why every casino has pulled out their dollar FPDW.
For now, they are willing to let a few small fish survive.

Here's a hint: Dollar players are not considered players who 'pull
out' large amounts of money. Ask the bozos who played the ones i had
installed at Wynn. The game took an average of just under 2% from
these so-called 'expert advantage players' on dollar FPDW. And when I
saw that I loved every minute of it. The rest of your words are as
ill-thought out as you are.

> More inconsistencies. You've seen time and again on vpFREE and
> elsewhere how the mysterious "hundreds of vp pros lurking the
streets
> of LV" are always being banned, barred, and maybe even boobed for
> their winning prowess.

Then I guess you're now admitting they are successful and advantage
play works. Otherwise why would they be banned?

See the word 'mysterious'? That means they don't exist. they only
exist in the minds of addicted vp players because they need a way to
make themselves feel OK about the large amounts of money they
constantly lose. It gives them false hope for the future, when in
fact the only way they really do have any hope is if they come to me
for help. And they do that--by the truckload.

You can't have it both ways. Either they are banned and advantage
play is successful or they are not banned and your entire argument

is

worthless. Which way is it? You really should ask yourself why your
mind contradicts itself in the middle of single paragraph?

Read above and weep.

> But you believe it. So please tell
> us how it can be that the casinos don't care a hoot about the
> individual's results again?

Because they can't tell the difference between someone who has had

a

lucky run and will eventually give it all back and an advantage
player. Someday this will change and they will be able to compute

the expected return for each player. Don't worry, you won't be banned.

What a theory! Too bad it's just that, because i know you have an
urgent need to build your own self confidence as a way to justify
playing far more than you should.

···

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

I see you fellows have invested a lot of energy
berating and belitteling each other. I don't think
it hurts anything since you're on an overflow forum
created for such rants. However, I can't help but
feel that clearly educated, articulate men could
better apply their energies to something more
productive.

I propose you invest 25% of the energy you'll spend
insulting each other today to better someone else's
life or situtation. Donate blood, volenteer at soup
kitchen, etc. At the end of the day you'll have
done the world some good and the administrator can
advertise this forum with words like; "now with 25% less
bile". Being honest your posts are nested so deep I
don't think anyone else is really reading them, and
clearly you're not going to change each other's minds.
What is there to possibly gain from continuing this
exchange. It's akin to a playgound name calling contest,
accept the kids don't stay at it anywhere near as long.