vpFREE2 Forums

Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

Obviously not the universal "we", but I have to agree with Gilbert

in that it "seems" that more deuces show

up than in other non-deuces wild games. It would be interesting if

one of you skeptics would play Deuces Wild

for an hour while counting how many deuces appear (even in redraws)

and then any other non-deuces wild game

for an hour also and once again count all the deuces that appear

and I believe you will find a disproportionate difference

in the amount of deuces shown between the two games.

There have been countless posts on subjects like this in the past.
Some times it seems every time I draw for a straight I get the same
card I discarded.

In 2003 Victor Royer published a book Powerful Profits from Video
Poker. In it he insists Aces are dealt more often than the other
cards. So he factors this "fact" into his system. He didn't say so,
but I'll bet he plays DDBP, where you always look for Aces. So even
a published "VP Expert" can be mislead by what he wants to happen.

It's not that hard to test. VP software is based on the assumption
the cards are dealt randomly. So run a million hands of Deuces Wild,
and you should get very close to the predicted outcome based on the
assumption of a random deal. If that doesn't happen please let us
know.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:

The egos are flying now.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Bill Coleman
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:44 PM
  Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  I was not slamming you, I was simply stating the fact that the way
  these programs are designed are rather complicated and even you, as
  an expert, are not always accurate. Not that these differences matter
  mathematically but here's what I'm referring to.

  In the summer of 2006 you finally found out that IGT Game Kings (and
  other machines of similar vintage) do not select 10 cards initially
  but 5 and then randomly select draw cards later. This makes it
  impossible for someone to think they'd selected the "wrong" cards
  when they cannot possibly determine what cards "would have" been
  drawn if other cards had been held.

  That summer you published, for the first time to my knowledge, the
  correct description of how the machines work. (Others of us had
  published the same information earlier and I was glad to see that
  you'd finally been correctly informed). In the issue of Strictly
  Slots that was published in early August, 2006, you again (in your
  Beginner's Corner column) gave the incorrect information that 10
  cards were initially selected. Although I don't read you regularly
  (and I no longer read either Strictly Slots or Casino Player due to
  numerous factual errors by many authors) I have come across at least
  one more reference that appeared to show you still sometimes think
  the machines deal this way when they do not.

  And just for a clarification I would not have responded that last
  time as I did had you given that "if" statement the way you describe.
  I am sorry that you consider any criticism (or even factual
  correction) as a personal attack. I have never written anything that
  could reasonably be construed as a "slam". In my post I said that
  "even Bob Dancer didn't know....". The word "even" implies that you
  are at the top of your field and that it is no surprise that an
  average person would be confused when even you were not aware for
  many years how this worked.

  Please try to understand that stating a fact, respectfully, is not an
  attack. However, another intimation that I have a grudge or desire to
  slam you could generate an example of what a personal attack is like.
  And I do not refer to you or anyone else by a last name. I would
  write about you as Mr. Dancer (or use your real name) and I'd
  appreciate the same courtesy in the future.

  Bill

  At 11:34 AM 12/9/2007, you wrote:
  >Bill Coleman wrote: Even Bob Dancer didn't how IGT machines are
  >programmed until recently and, based on his writing, may not really
  >believe it yet
  >
  >
  >Hardly. Bill Coleman periodically slams me and attributes this to me
  >that I didn't say.
  >
  >In the series of posts Coleman is probably referring to, I posted that
  >"IF we assume that we hit the button at the same time, then . . ." and
  >that is/was a true statement. Coleman decided that since it is unlikely
  >that buttons are hit at the same time that I was incorrect. I wasn't
  >addressing how likely that was, and he wasn't addressing how likely the
  >consequence was once we make that assumption. He was addressing
  >something totally different that what I was saying.
  >
  >Bob Dancer
  >
  > For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
  >computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
  >
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I could swear I have that book somewhere, or maybe I gave it to
Goodwill. Maybe it's in the unread set of Clive Cussler books over
there in the corner. For a 40-something guy, reading Clive Cussler
is like working out with Jack LaLanne. Both are about 90 and leave
you with the same feeling of inadequacy.

Anyway, Royer said there was actually something within the chip that
caused the aces, something like a bit drop in the CIA, or LSD, or
some acronym of something. And he never described what this thing
was or stood for or what a 'bit drop' was. It was loopy for sure.
But maybe one day, like the monkey with the typewriter, someone's
bound to accidentally come up with a conspiracy theory that's
actually true.

There have been countless posts on subjects like this in the

past.

Some times it seems every time I draw for a straight I get the

same

card I discarded.

In 2003 Victor Royer published a book Powerful Profits from Video
Poker. In it he insists Aces are dealt more often than the other
cards. So he factors this "fact" into his system. He didn't say

so,

but I'll bet he plays DDBP, where you always look for Aces. So

even

a published "VP Expert" can be mislead by what he wants to happen.

It's not that hard to test. VP software is based on the

assumption

the cards are dealt randomly. So run a million hands of Deuces

Wild,

and you should get very close to the predicted outcome based on

the

···

assumption of a random deal. If that doesn't happen please let us
know.

OK, I'm doing this from memory of a DB game, but isn't the higher payout AAAA2 (or 3, or 4)???
I think I would notice the deuce but then the correct strategy might be to dump the K2
as you would have a greater chance for the 4th A.

Bill, I think you are referring to the phenomena of "presence of mind".
Say you took interest in a certain model of a new car. You think
you haven't seen any around as you haven't noticed any before
and the styling of the car is easily noticeable. Now the car idea
is present in your mind and suddenly you start seeing that car everywhere.

I learned a long time ago to look at every card and notice it's rank and suit
to prevent me from overlooking the best option of play. Therefore, I've
noticed some other similar quirks in live games. Such as playing Lowball
and catching noting but face cards and then change over to a draw or stud
game and catch nothing but low cards.

The other weird thing is catching good cards from one dealer while catching
only bad cards from another dealer.

Then it occurred to me that the secret to all of this was in the way a dealer handled the
cards and the tendency of the cards to group together according to game play and to
even a small extent, your position at the table.

So, a question comes to mind, exactly how does a VP machine handle the cards?
Is a "fresh deck" with all the cards in suit and rank used, or a deck composed of the discards
with suit and rank in random positions? Are the decks "shuffled" and cards dealt from
the top of the deck (with or without burn cards), or does the RNG just use the first ten
numbers produced to pick their correspondingly assigned cards.

RNG's can be set up in a wide variety of methods and still retain the random aspect
because with a true RNG, operating in the way most people believe they should, would
almost never produce a RF, SF, or a ST. So poker RNGs must be set up to pick 10
numbers from 1 to 52 (or 53 for the Joker game). Each number would have a card assigned
to it such as 1=Ac, 13=Ad, 26=Ah, and 39=As, or the other method would be to select the
ten cards by their location in the deck such as 1=first or top card and 52 (53)= the last card
or bottom of the deck. This last method used on the discard or shuffled deck would
produce a concentration of deuces and therefore more deuces would appear than in other
games.

Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that their are certain controls in
place to prevent losses. Most say that is controlled by the pay table, and while there is
some truth to that there is also the case of RF appearing more frequently when Max Bet
isn't used and easily justified to the GCC.

Jackie

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Bill Coleman
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  Hi Jackie and Gilbert,

  I'm going to take an educated guess here. When we're playing ducks
  not only is that the first card we look for but they stand out with
  the "WILD" on them. Play double bonus, get dealt A-A-A-K-2 and you're
  just not likely to notice it's a 2. Your autopilot will classify the
  2 as a low card, just like it would a 3, 4, etc.

  The feeling that we see more ducks when playing a deuces game
  probably comes from this. Just like we often see patterns in
  randomness that aren't really there.

  Possibly with a few execptions in isolated joints every commercial
  casino (excepting a few racinos and some native casinos) have
  machines that select cards in a way that every card has an equal
  chance to be dealt or drawn. I've posted many times exactly how this
  works. If you need more information please feel free to ask.

  And I'm sorry that too many idiots on this list think you should be
  flamed simply for making a statement that shows you don't understand
  how the machines work. Even Bob Dancer didn't how IGT machines are
  programmed until recently and, based on his writing, may not really
  believe it yet so there's nothing wrong with having mistaken beliefs
  about the inner workings.

  Thanks,

  Bill

  At 07:53 AM 12/9/2007, you wrote:
  >Obviously not the universal "we", but I have to agree with Gilbert
  >in that it "seems" that more deuces show
  >up than in other non-deuces wild games. It would be interesting if
  >one of you skeptics would play Deuces Wild
  >for an hour while counting how many deuces appear (even in redraws)
  >and then any other non-deuces wild game
  >for an hour also and once again count all the deuces that appear and
  >I believe you will find a disproportionate difference
  >in the amount of deuces shown between the two games. Hmmm, maybe a
  >good project for Dancer's next article
  >along with the game manufacturers explanation for the disparity.
  >
  >Jackie
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: bornloser1537
  > To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 6:42 AM
  > Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards
  > drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'
  >
  >
  > We do?
  >
  > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@...> wrote:
  > >
  > > As we all know, the 'Deuces' or the number '2' come out more frequently
  > > in the Deuces Wild game than in the other games such as JoB, Bonus
  > > Poker, DB, DDB, TDB, etc.
  > >
  > > gilbert
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
  >
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Simple answer, I have neither the reputation nor the respect of this community to be believed
if my test proved me right. Therefore, my efforts would be wasted and nothing would ever change.
However, if you, a skeptic, were to discover my premise to be true, would you admit it?

Jackie

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: King Fish
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  On 12/9/07, Jackie <ajackiek@cox.net> wrote:
  > ... I have to agree with Gilbert in that it "seems" that more deuces show
  > up than in other non-deuces wild games. It would be interesting if one of
  > you skeptics would play Deuces Wild for an hour while counting how many
  > deuces appear (even in redraws) and then any other non-deuces wild game
  > for an hour also and once again count all the deuces that appear and I
  > believe you will find a disproportionate difference in the amount of deuces
  > shown between the two games.

  Why don't YOU do it?

  Many people here believe you will find NO disproportionate difference
  in the amount of deuces
  shown between the two games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would think a 2 to 1 difference would suffice.

Jackie

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Matt
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 1:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: King Fish
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  On 12/9/07, Jackie <ajackiek@cox.net> wrote:
  > many people here believe you will find NO disproportionate difference
  in the amount of deuces
  shown between the two games.

  What's a "disproportionate difference?"

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sure, I would admit it, but I wouldn't discover it, I would have to be shown.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Hand waving doesn't impress me.

Collect data that shows deuces shows up more than average by six
sigmas, and we'll talk.

···

On 12/10/07, Jackie <ajackiek@cox.net> wrote:

However, if you, a skeptic, were to discover my premise to be true, would you admit it?

We do? <smile>

..... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marvele66" <marvele66@...> wrote:

We have to(o) many elitist
wannabe experts here.

Then it occurred to me that the secret to all of this was in the

way a dealer handled the

cards and the tendency of the cards to group together according to

game play and to

even a small extent, your position at the table.

This is called random. The key is the groupings you notice are
temporary and move around. The existence of short term patterns in
random events is part of randomness. The fact that we notice them so
easily is really a function of the human mind which is tuned to
noticing patterns.

So, a question comes to mind, exactly how does a VP machine handle

the cards?

Is a "fresh deck" with all the cards in suit and rank used, or a

deck composed of the discards

with suit and rank in random positions? Are the decks "shuffled"

and cards dealt from

the top of the deck (with or without burn cards), or does the RNG

just use the first ten

numbers produced to pick their correspondingly assigned cards.

This has been covered many times on this site. The RNG continually
runs, even while you are playing a hand. Logically, think that a copy
of the cards is dealt out while the real cards are constantly
shuffled. The RNG only "copies" five cards when deal is pressed and
copies the number of discards when you press "draw". This takes
microseconds and then the RNG goes back to looping through billions
of numbers.

RNG's can be set up in a wide variety of methods and still retain

the random aspect

This is true, however, the LAW also requires that every card has the
same chance of appearing. This eliminates any card favoratism. It is
this part of the law that allows us to determine the cycle times for
the various hand types and determine a games payback. I think it's
time for someone to go read the gaming regulations.

because with a true RNG, operating in the way most people believe

they should, would

almost never produce a RF, SF, or a ST.

No, this is patently false. I have two RNGs downloaded on my computer
that I use for testing various aspects of VP games. What you said is
completely wrong and demonstrates you don't understand what random
means. I would suggest doing a little reading on the subject.

So poker RNGs must be set up to pick 10
numbers from 1 to 52 (or 53 for the Joker game). Each number would

have a card assigned

to it such as 1=Ac, 13=Ad, 26=Ah, and 39=As, or the other method

would be to select the

ten cards by their location in the deck such as 1=first or top card

and 52 (53)= the last card

or bottom of the deck. This last method used on the discard or

shuffled deck would

produce a concentration of deuces and therefore more deuces would

appear than in other

games.

Like I said, you need to do some reading. The mechanism most likely
used randomly produces a number between 1-52 (53). For example, the
next 5 numbers might be 7, 33, 35, 9, 12. The logical deck of cards
is constant (and might be exactly what you stated above) but these
numbers keep changing through the RNG algorithm that runs constantly
and the probability of any one number appearing exactly when you
press deal is the same for every number. It is this number that is
used to select the card found in the position corresponding to said
number.

Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that their

are certain controls in

place to prevent losses. Most say that is controlled by the pay

table, and while there is

some truth to that there is also the case of RF appearing more

frequently when Max Bet

isn't used and easily justified to the GCC.

Go read the Nevada gaming regs. There are controls in place to
prevent EXACTLY what you said. I realize I'm probably talking to
someone who has their mind made up, but the facts present an entirely
different story. If you can explain why a casino would break the law
when changing paytables LEGALLY accomplishes the same thing then I
might be willing to listen. And, if this was a common occurance then
why wouldn't we see 110% payback machines everywhere?

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:

There are other valid possibilities without going into the realm of
cheating casinos. I play a lot of AA. If I throw away all 5 cards, I
feel like I've made a mistake. When I go to Vegas and play Double
Deuces, I throw away all five cards all the time. Each card you throw
away is another chance for a deuce. No conspiracy theory needed. Of
course, on my last visit I was missing 2-3 expected 4 deuces, ....

dipy911

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:

I'm going to take an educated guess here. When we're playing ducks
not only is that the first card we look for but they stand out with
the "WILD" on them. Play double bonus, get dealt A-A-A-K-2 and you're
just not likely to notice it's a 2. Your autopilot will classify the
2 as a low card, just like it would a 3, 4, etc.

Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that their

are certain controls in

place to prevent losses.

The State of Nevada, Division of Gaming's definition of gambling is "1
part chance, 1 part consideration, 1 part reward." Any game that does
not fit the definition cannot be used for gaming purposes in the State
of Nevada. A gaffed machine is not gambling. Whatever it is, it is
not gambling.

If you beleive the cards are not dealt at random, contact the State of
Nevada, Division of Gaming. I'm sure they will be happy to listen to
your concerns.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:

>
> Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that

their

are certain controls in
> place to prevent losses.

The State of Nevada, Division of Gaming's definition of gambling

is "1

part chance, 1 part consideration, 1 part reward." Any game that

does

not fit the definition cannot be used for gaming purposes in the

State

of Nevada. A gaffed machine is not gambling. Whatever it is, it

is

not gambling.

If you beleive the cards are not dealt at random, contact the State

of

Nevada, Division of Gaming. I'm sure they will be happy to listen

to

your concerns.

Good post, Mickey. I sometimes wonder why people "need" to believe
that gambling is not fair. While no one would ever claim there aren't
a few unscrupulous folks out there who would do anything to take our
money, why do they believe everyone falls into this category.

Jackie, you should understand that the casinos do put in "controls"
to make sure they maximize their profits. However, not in the way you
indicated. They do this legally by using data mining techniques to
determine trends, find poor returns on their investments, etc. For
example, if they find a certain bank of machines is not returning
what they determine to be acceptable, they will either remove the
bank or set it payback less through paytable adjustements. This is
completely legal and above board. The bottom line is the casinos
don't "need" to cheat to make fantastic profits. They have legal ways
to accomplish this goal.

We, as astute gamblers, need to recognize this fact and do what
we "need" to do in order to maximize our personal profits.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@> wrote:

From: "marvele66" <marvele66@...>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn,

and the

'Deuces' or '2s'

> Why not help the guy instead of acting like an ass.

Gilbert_616 has been posting on this forum for years. If he truly

believes

that, in any gaming jurisdiction that is stringently controlled and
regulated to offer fair games, any video poker game would deal one

card rank

more often than another, then I can't help him. With the tremendous
collection of valid information that is available just on vpFREE,

all one

needs is to invest a modicum of time studying the already assembled
resources to start down the path to become a "Pro". No, I don't

mean a

professional. I mean becoming proficient at the games one plays.

>We have to many elitist
> wannabe experts here.

I don't want to be anything. Elitist? Expert? I can't say, but I

will say

this. I have been playing video poker for more than 20 years, and

full time

for the past six, and have never had a losing year. On a rocky

climb on any

mountain range, even the witless burro will begin his ascent after

only mild

prodding from a pair of spurs.
                       Nudge
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Nudge Nudge Nudge Nudge51 ???
or is it Rob Rob Rob
Maybe it's time to verify who nudge51 really is…
Remember the private e-mail you sent me a few years back?
You forgot to clean up the "From:" section that shows "nudge51".
And at the end of your message "Rob Singer".

Has anyone else other than me who had said anything good in favor
of "Jean Scott" such as the "voluntary work at some schools" received
any private emails from RobS?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nudge51" <nudge51@...> wrote:

I have been playing video poker for more than 20 years, and full time
for the past six, and have never had a losing year.

--Rob? Rob, is that you? We've missed you lately!

Scot

if it says "nudge51", you guess is probably right on!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Scot Krause" <krauseinvegas@...> wrote:

I have been playing video poker for more than 20 years, and full time
for the past six, and have never had a losing year.

--Rob? Rob, is that you? We've missed you lately!

Scot

Typical skeptic retort.

For those of you who don't know, one sigma = 200
therefore six sigma's would be 1200. Therefore he
is saying that getting 1200 or more deuces than a
regular game on average is proof enough for him.

For someone who isn't impressed by hand waving
you sure do a lot of it.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: King Fish
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'

  On 12/10/07, Jackie <ajackiek@cox.net> wrote:
  > However, if you, a skeptic, were to discover my premise to be true, would you admit it?

  Sure, I would admit it, but I wouldn't discover it, I would have to be shown.

  Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

  Hand waving doesn't impress me.

  Collect data that shows deuces shows up more than average by six
  sigmas, and we'll talk.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Obviously not the universal "we", but I have to agree with Gilbert

in that it "seems" that more deuces show

up than in other non-deuces wild games. It would be interesting if

one of you skeptics would play Deuces Wild

for an hour while counting how many deuces appear (even in redraws)

and then any other non-deuces wild game

for an hour also and once again count all the deuces that appear

and I believe you will find a disproportionate difference

in the amount of deuces shown between the two games. Hmmm, maybe a

good project for Dancer's next article

along with the game manufacturers explanation for the disparity.

Jackie
-------------------------------------------------------------------

gilbert wrote:
Thanks for giving the original post a little bit more sense, Jackie!
In this forum, it seems that as soon as you mention "RNG-and-thelikes"
, people starts talking about honesty and dishonesty of the vp
machines. (o: just like seeing the WILD in "Deuces Wild"? :> :>

I did not mean seeing the "Deuces" or "2s" more frequently on the
DEAL or the 1st deal. What I meant to say is that it seems that
the "Deuces" or "2s" come out more frequently in both the 1st and 2nd
Draws combined in the "Deuces Wild" games than in Non-Deuces Wild
game.

If you see or experience it differently than me, that's fine and you
don't have to look at your Dictionary to find "Al-Qaida"-type words
to reply on topics that you have The Right to Ignore.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:

if it says "nudge51", you guess is probably right on!

Truthfully, I know "nudge" personally. I was just razzing him a bit! But 20
years of winning may be stretching, eh, nudge? Are you adding in the cash
value of all those combs and keychains? :slight_smile:

Scot

gilbert wrote:
Thanks for giving the original post a little bit more sense, Jackie!
In this forum, it seems that as soon as you mention "RNG-and-

thelikes"

, people starts talking about honesty and dishonesty of the vp
machines. (o: just like seeing the WILD in "Deuces Wild"? :> :>

I did not mean seeing the "Deuces" or "2s" more frequently on the
DEAL or the 1st deal. What I meant to say is that it seems that
the "Deuces" or "2s" come out more frequently in both the 1st and

2nd

Draws combined in the "Deuces Wild" games than in Non-Deuces Wild
game.

What's the difference? You appear to be saying they come out more
than they should for a randomly dealt deck of cards. This implies the
games are not honest (although in a way that favors the player). IF
YOUR TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE THEN SAY IT!

PS. Jackie thinks they don't come out as often as they should.

If you see or experience it differently than me, that's fine and

you

don't have to look at your Dictionary to find "Al-Qaida"-type words
to reply on topics that you have The Right to Ignore.

When posting to a public forum you are inviting any and everyone to
respond with their opinion. That's just the way it is.

Gilbert, you still haven't answered the question as to WHY you
believe this to be true. If it's simply a gut feel, then there's an
easy way to tell. Keep track.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@...> wrote:

Truthfully, I know "nudge" personally. I was just razzing him a bit!

But 20

years of winning may be stretching, eh, nudge? Are you adding in the

cash

value of all those combs and keychains? :slight_smile:

Rob and Nudge really are one and the same. I know this as a fact. When
Rob wants to actually win money he dons his Nudge disguise and heads
out to the casino to play expertly. He then claims he has won money
using his progresso-whatsit system. It's a perfect ploy.

You should also know that Nudge and DRAINBRAMAGE are sisters. Well,
they used to be brothers until DB had that operation ...

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Scot Krause" <krauseinvegas@...> wrote: