--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
.
I doubt it's still there if you "pros" have been hammering it to
the tune of $12.08 per hour as you pointed out above. /sarcasm
LOL! Great line.
Can someone please explain to me what the discussion about Robs' real
name is? I'm missing something here
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
> Could you be less specific?
>
> > See the Las Vegas strip if you
> > have any questions.
>
> I don't play on the strip anymore. Haven't in 7-8 years. I look
for
> positive games. Here's my short list on the south side of LV.
Sam's
> Town, Monte Lago, Stations (GVR, Sunset and Fiesta Henderson).
I see I have to spell everything out for you. My point was that
the megaresorts on the strip are built from the profits of addicted
"advantage players". If not brainwashed video poker players, then
blackjack card counters.
Please provide supporting evidence for this clearly incorrect
assertion.
> > I'm not dissing capitalism.
>
> Yes you are. You asked why someone would want to "sell", ie. make
> money and then you berate them for doing it.Well if it were me, and I had developed a whiz-bang math theory
that JUST CAN'T LOSE, I'd keep it to myself and rake in the profits.
The problem is no one developed your so-called "whiz-bang math
theory". It was there for anyone to discover. Someone eventually
would have published it.
It would be a lot more fun than selling junk trinkets to the sheep,
not to mention it would be more morally satisfying beating the
casinos then taking money out of the pockets of people who can't
afford it but against their better judgement fall for that crap.
Actually, I suspect the motive was to help others so they would SAVE
money. It's made a BIG difference in my gambling results to
understand Advantage play. Much better than copying an already
disproven Martingale system and hawking it as an improvement. The
only evil I see is the little coward RS.
>4-to-the-royals I got on $2 8/5 BP didn't pan out, nor did the 3
> > dealt trip Aces on $2 8/5 DDB. So I left. Full Houses didn't
mean
> > anything this time out, because I didn't get any.
>
> But if did have one and were playing a positive game (like 10/7
DB)
> then you would have had a couple of more hands to play, maybe you
> would have got something. I suppose you didn't had a flush
either.
> Not to mention the many more hands you could have played with
your
> money when not playing a progression ...
I'm not out for marathon video poker play, nor a miniscule win
percentage. The less hands I have to play to get a win, the better.
Yeah, right. How about the less hands you play to become a BIG loser.
> Absolutely. Neither of my two 4RF panned out these last two days
> either. I never had 4 aces either but then they wouldn't mean
much
at
> OEJs. This is why you should play the best game possible. In my
case
> I came out $145 ahead over 12 hours of gambling, but then I'm
sure
> you're much happier with your loss.
Whoopeee!!!! You are a madman! 12 hours of breathing dank casino
air filled with smoke and K-Mart's best fragrances, for a
massive $145 profit. Yep, you're right, I am so jealous. Let's
see,
12 hours of play, you MUST have seen quite a few quads. Why
only $145 profit??? It's either: 1. You don't know when or how
to quit. 2. You stayed on the same denomination the whole time…
3. You play for points and not money…or 4. All of the above.
1. It was a trip where I was staying overnight (comped). I don't
drive hundreds of miles to leave in 10 minutes when I hit some
mythical goal that has no bearing on my long term success.
2. Yes, I did. I KNOW that playing a progression will not increase my
ER. I KNOW the RS system is a fraud.
3.I play for both.
4.And what did you get out of your little excursion?
>
> Let's see, if you were playing Rob's flat earth system and maxed
out
> at $2, that means you started at .10. You probably can't wait for
> that next $400 royal after losing over $1,000.Nope, quarters. A royal at 3 of my 4 levels would wipe out
the loss and provide a profit.
Skipping a level drops your probability of winning each trip
significantly. I hope you don't get discouraged too soon.
A royal at the quarter level would
make a big dent. Not that I count on a royal, because I don't.
Plus, the potential bonus quads will override it as well. Finally,
I
spend a tiny fraction of the time that you waste playing.
You could get out even quicker by playing 800 credits at the $2 level
and leaving when you've won or lost.
Of course, I'm pocketing cashouts along the way per Rob's strategy,
so even in the worst case scenario of not reaching a profit goal,
there is always money left over even if I cycle through the
progression without reaching the overall goal. The cashouts are not
used to play "a couple more hands" like the addicts do.
I'm sure those .25 cashouts go a long way on the $2 machines.
>
> PS. Last time I was in Biloxi they had FP OEJs.I doubt it's still there if you "pros" have been hammering it to
the tune of $12.08 per hour as you pointed out above. /sarcasm
Since there are no published strategies for OEJs this statement means
nothing.
Dick
Can someone please explain to me what the discussion about Robs'
real
name is? I'm missing something here
Rob Singer is NOT his real name. He challenges, bashes and ridicules
others while not having the guts to use his real name. It's not just
me, check out his responses to Randy and Elliot.
Dick
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomghysel" <tomghysel@y...> wrote:
Where did I say that? Nowhere. Get your facts straight or appear
like a complete idiot.
So now there's none? A or B. B or C. C or D.
> Is that
> why they keep renovating the joints and why they're all so
> successful? Remeber when the Suncoast has a ton of 'positive'
games up thru at least $2? Every bozo 'advantage player' in town
spent hours there chasing a theory every day, and the Suncoast then
became the most successful casino in LV history. I sure wish I had
the same sense of fact that you do!
And then they removed the games. Are we back to this topic again?
This just proves my point.
So you're saying and agreeing to the fact that the Suncoast drew all
those successful gamblers in daily to just let them win, they gave
them double cash back with all those double point days to boot, yet
they were at the same time the most successful money-making casino in
LV history? Does 1+1=2 mean anything to you anymore? And whether you
choose to believe it or not, I checked with their management when all
the groans were posted on vpfree about Suncoast lowering pay tables.
It was a pure management decision based on an executive order to find
a way to increase profit percentage and nothing more. Do you think
they were shaking in their boots all that time when so-called
advantage players walked in their doors? The funny part is, many of
those players still go in and play, because they are loyal customers
who ehloy decent surroundings fo a change instead of the dumpy joints
that continue attempts to meet Suncoast's success but never will.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> I see I have to spell everything out for you. My point was that
> the megaresorts on the strip are built from the profits of
addicted
> "advantage players". If not brainwashed video poker players, then
> blackjack card counters.
>Please provide supporting evidence for this clearly incorrect
assertion.
How about: The casinos always have the long-term advantage over
every game in the places, period.
The problem is no one developed your so-called "whiz-bang math
theory". It was there for anyone to discover. Someone eventually
would have published it.
Yeah, someone who can't win with it and needs to earn a living
somehow.
Yeah, right. How about the less hands you play to become a BIG
loser.
It has not been the norm so far, and I don't expect it to be
in the future. Regardless, that's what the stop-limits are for.
> I doubt it's still there if you "pros" have been hammering it to
> the tune of $12.08 per hour as you pointed out above. /sarcasmSince there are no published strategies for OEJs this statement
means
nothing.
What? You mean you're playing it without an advantage? What
would your Queen say about that? Hide your wrists, I see a flying
ruler coming at you!
> In other words, the bell curve is only a crutch for you as you
> waffle away with your theories.No waffling here, but Mr. MBS clearly didn't know the difference.
that's what I wanted to know.
Although you will never admit to what you really do here, wannabees
search for and manufacture crutches wherever they can find them. That
happens to be you.
> I'm not convinced of that. Let's see--there's how many people on
> vpfree that can easily write on this one, and more people here
are in favor of stringing you up than me so far. A fine job, my
friend.
You want to try that in english next time? If I've upset anyone
it's most likely for continuing this discussion with you. You're
already well known as an egotistical liar. I suspect most have
already filtered this topic out which makes your claims more than a
little suspect.
Oh I see. When plan A doesn't pan out, try plan B. If you're such a
purist and you're concerned about who you upset (waawaawaa) then
you're a hypocrite on this subject too. You're very lost, and
constantly trying to fit in. The sign of an insecure soul. That's why
you keep telling yourself "I'm doing a fine job".
> Historical data means nothing? Guess how the B2 bomber was
developed--on some kind of theory?Yes, lot's of theories AND experience and lot's of complicated
mathematics.
Duh. Guess what. No bomber is EVER manufactured on theory without
actual proof. The policy states that theories must be proven to work
first--over and over until perfected. Gee, that kind of sounds
exactly like what I did.
> Here's a flash, Einstein: THEY USED AS MUCH
> HISTORICAL DATA AS WAS AVAILABLE, and thse who bid it did so with
> that data, and NOT some theoretical swag.You just made my point. "AS MUCH HISTORICAL DATA AS WAS AVAILABLE".
You ask people to take ONE example (you) and go with it.
No, YOU ask people that question, and you give them your twisted
answer at the same time. I don't ask anyone to do anything and I
don't care about anyone else. I offer advice and assistance with
every caveat required at all times. You don't get that because you
don't want to. Yet nowhere in Dancer's or the other 'guru's sales
pitches do they warn people that losing 70% of the time is sensible
to go out and do, or that most 'advantage play' people will lose big
time, and the only way they will win is if they get extremely
lucky....as Dancer was during his special 6-month streak.
Clearly, you know about as much about how the world runs as any
mamas boy could. Try taking off the blinders someday. And, thanks for
making my point again.
Lots of knowledge went into those words of wisdom, I take it. All you
do is clarify the point I made about why theoretical idiots such as
yourself are not allowed to manage anything significant in this
world, and why you virtual wannabees surround yourselves in a make-
believe world so you won't lose your minds.
No, it's because it's the truth. First, I did some research where I
learned that VP could be positive. I used alt.rec.gambling to
extract a little info. Since the only "potentially" positive game
(OEJs) in my area was not mentioned in any of the literature, I had
no choice but to do my own analysis. I found a free program,
vpfreebie, that I could use to learn to game and I wrote my own hand
analysis and game analysis programs.
Now isn't that just the path a geek would take to do anything--even
cook walleye. And here's another beam of light for your fading style:
Indian casinos cheat people, McFly!! Hello!!! Looks like they reeled
in another geek as planned - always knowing you would convince
yourself through your system of virtual reality that the games are
100% fair. Typical.
Cop out. You are such a coward. First of all, advantage play is
NOONEs' system. It's a direct interpretation of the math. Now,
let's see YOUR math from which YOU interpret YOUR system.
Who's 'noone'? Never heard of him either. The gurus made it their
system by selling everything they could create about the subject.
That too is a direct interpretation of the math. Buy low and sell
high. If they're slimy enough to take other people's money for this
junk, then they ought to be up-front enough and offer a money-back
guarantee AT LEAST ON THE JUNK IF NOTHING ELSE when players lose
playing as they tell them to. Compare that to you wanting me to
replenish players accounts who lose to my methods, when I tell them
the only way it can work successfully is when they play exactly as I
do and under the same exact circumstances as I have.
You ask for something that was readily available and you weren't
willing to look for it yourself. Not only that, you had replied
directly to them so no work should have even been required. I guess
mama must not be there to help you out. Or, more likely, you're too
drunk to remember.
More crybabying.
> You're simply a parrot for them and you know it.
Nope, you'd like it to be true but it isn't. You keep backing away
from me you sniveling coward.
You're a parrot and now an advertisement for the group who sells
false dreams. You ought to be arrested just like them.
> If it weren't for them you'd be having weekly meetings with old
computer fairies who neither fit into this generation nor the one
that came before. All they've got now is their googly-eyes and rusted
out slide rules. You wanted more, so you got hooked by video poker
and the unattainable theories that surround it all. And you now have
no choice but to make believe all that nonsense is real, because if
it weren't, you'd end up in the cuckoo's nest.
The gutless bigot in you is no more obvious than when you go on one
of these ridiculous tirades.
Tirades that say it all about you, it appears.
> Those who have supposedly won 'lots' of money, if true, have only
done so because they've experienced more good luck than others.
Now who's waffling?
Huh? Read my site again. Says this everywhere, and I've said it here.
Then read Dancer's book for his own verification.
Is there some point to this ramble? Gambling winnings are generally
a result of better than average luck, losses are a result of worse
than average luck. All gamblers will have streaks of both. The only
control one has is to play accurately and play positive games or
not play at all.
So you are finally agreeing that winning play is based on good luck
and losing play is based on bad luck. Wonder of wonders..... You're
control theory is off a bit though. Since each session is an
independent event as is every hand, math has no control over what may
or may not come out on the draw on that one particular hand. That's
why special plays developed by me in order to reach certain goals at
optimal times in my play sessions are just as likely to win as the
math hand is. You know that, and everyone knows that.
Playing 'accurately' is far overrated, because it limits the
abilities of the player to think and react properly. Of course, if a
player is committed to just sitting there and playing on and on and
on like a bored zombie, they'll never figure this out even when told
at point blank range. Blinders are too thick.
My facts are perfectly straight. You claim all us are too stupid to
play VP correctly. I claim we're not.
Your facts remain distorted. I claim that no human can attain the
perfection or near-perfection required to win at positive games, and
no one can ever play enough hands to get there anyway. And if you
come up with some stupid theory about how much Bob Dancer or some
other geek-icon must be playing, all you'll do is certify that the
guy's more nuts than first thought, because he spends so much time
inside unhealthy environments just to chase a teeny weeny percentage
as he steps into the grave. Sounds like fun.
I realize you have no idea what's involved in a mathematical proof.
You still think the earth is flat. "General approach" makes a proof
is more ENCOMPASSING. You are such an idiot.
'General approach' is a cop out statement for theorists. That's you.
Just a post ago you were asking who Reid is. Now you've waffled
completely around again. You have no clue.
The clue is that his statements were made by many people around the
world. You idolize him because he's as vague as you are. In your mind
he's a silent hero, but once you try to push his nonsense on someone
intelligent then you run into that noise you can't stand.
Then you are a pretty poor excuse for a human being. You know, if
you'd get to know more people, then you'd understand that it's not
that easy to generalize everyone to meet your preconceived ideas.
Generalizing is the mark of a theorist....like you. I deal with
reality, and the reality here is that you keep inserting another foot
into your mouth nearly every time you write. How many do you have
anyway?
> And you don't believe that a video poker player MUST have above-
> average self-respect in order to own the discipline &
determination that make up a winning player?
That's not what we were talking about.
Answer the question.
You made a generalization that VP players are fat and lazy and now
you're trying to change the subject, again. Now, if only you had the
SELF-RESPECT to state your name when ridiculing others.
Get with the program in more ways than one! Michael Savage tells the
truth (ridicules, to you) about everyone he mentions, and that's not
his 'real' name. It's common. Skip Hughes ridicules all players by
feeding them his nonsense and expecting them to be dumb enough to
believe it. The plain fact is, most vp players ARE fat, they're low
in self-respect & self-confidence, they drink too much, and a high
percentage of them smoke. Perfect gamblers for ANY casino manager. I
wouldn't expect that to be the 'general' case for members of vpfree,
since they have the money to buy computers, etc. But on the whole, as
you scout the locals joints, that's the very pathetic picture you'll
see.
> You're a fool and I'm a bigot. I'll take bigot. Fools are ugly
and look stupid to boot.
I've has proven many times over that you are a liar and bigot. I'll
take that.
I've seen proof over and over that you're really the phony as well as
the fool. No bigot though, because it doesn't fit into your virtual
reality world.
Nope, never have and never will. I think anyone who reads these
posts knows my position very well.
Of course. Now you're talking yourself into believing what you think
is real.
> Check with Sue at
> Ramada Express on a $10 BP machine that I beat the hell out of--
ask why it's gone! Kind of puts a kink in that theory....again.
Actually, it supports my theory. You, on the other hand, should be
happy with any negative machine where you can play flat earth
system.
There's that waffle again. When stuck, agree nebulously.
I've got few "favorite" machines too. I don't play that high of
denom so it doesn't get anyones attention. What happened to the other
games in your progression? Was that a lie?
Who says that was a 'favorite' machine? I have no such thing and
never will. I win because of my strategy and not because of any
machine. And what about the other machines in my progression?
I said >.25. You removed my ">" symbol. What a fool. When you
resort to editing my posts you come across as completely dishonest. I
already knew that and now it's obvious to everyone.
You're getting increasingly nervous. I did no editing.
So, now you're running. No surprise. You are such a coward. What
happened to your 10000:1 odds? I'm more than happy to put up my
$60. Just set the time and place.
It's $300k earnst money. Got it? If not, even an unemployed 21 year
old can come up with 60 bucks. Be a man. Not a chicken.
How about when you get back. You set the time and the location in
LV, that was YOUR challenge. Just remember to put up the cash first.
I'm always around. It's $300k.
> One foot in the grave? Yikes! you're right!!
I usually am in ALL of our discussions.
...and then left, and then right, left, right,.....
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
Now given your play of 400 credits at the $25 level, how many
sessions should it take, on average, for someone to hit a RF at the
$25 level? 20? 30? Even 10*17,200 comes out to $172,000 in losses.
Actually, it will come out that expectation is the same as the
games payback. What a concept.
I don't care about royals at the $25 level -- you do. I go home
immediately after every royal. Playing $25 is not common because I
usually don't need to. Now go back and do your theoretical math some
more so it fits reality this time.
And luck plays no part in your results? Sure. You've indicated
previously you don't consider yourself lucky.
The words were: I experience no more good luck than you or anyone
else who plays the game. I simply take complete advantage of the
times it comes along. And unlike addicts -- who must keep playing
through good luck until it turns bad, or who feel the need to advance
in denomination out of some uncontrollable compulsion -- my goals are
set in order that I may stop playing and leave right then and there.
> But I do have one of those royals, as
> well as several $10 and numerous 5's.So you admit you've been lucky. Now you see why you're ahead. It
has nothing to do with your system.
No. Read the above again. And I do play for RF's more than optimal
play calls for. That's why I get some of them. My numbers suggest I
get them about once every 34,000 hands on average.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> That's why bankroll, determination, and
> always doing what you say you are going to do are the keys. If any
> casino manager knew what I was about to do when I went in to play
> this way, they never allow me to sit down.In your warped mind only.
> In real life, people care about and
> plan for the rest of their lives. In gambling, the only thing
that makes sense is to win every time you play, ...
So, where's your guarantee?
About life, or gambling. In both, for me it's a self-guarantee. I
care nothing about anyone else's results using my strategies.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
You don't understand the use of leverage in the business sense? I'm
amazed. Where did you get that MBS, you said Boston College? Are
you sure it wasn't Boston elementary school?
Your view on leverage is typically distorted as everything is. The
only 'leverage' a computer weeny owns is the ability to receive gobs
of sympathy from others because they look funny, act weird, and have
to have everything written down theoretically before they can begin
to understand it.
Easy on that bottle Rob. The point is THIS discussion is about you
and your fraudulent system.
I go easy on the booze I own. Most of it costs more than your
computer.
> Doubts are just more feel-good theories that people without much
> experience continually use. Remind you of anyone?It's much better to have a "feel-good theory" that actually works,
then to be a lying bigot who doesn't have the balls to state his
own name. Remind you of anyone?
If it works then it's no theory. Read my statement about 'doubts'
above and enjoy it again.
They're willing to put up with a few stiffs if they can attract
more gamblers.
Wrong. Stiffs mean nothing to them unless they come in with gamblers
who think they know-it-all.
> They couldn't care less about those who don't play--you know,
> like the geek convention of tekkies held almost every year in LV.
> That's hotel business only. Those nimrods are useless to casinos,
and only go there for the titty shows, the cheap buffets, and and
to see the new gadgets some other geek developed.
You mean something like the computer in front of you.
Yup. I use those fools for my beck and call all the time.
> Jean turns the stiffs into
> beginning players who believe every word she speaks because they
> don't know any better. She knows how to prey on the weak and
> uninformed.You just completely contradicted yourself. First they are highly
intelligent geeks, then they are weak.
Hey, Jean Scott's no geek. Her subjects are weak like her, only she
figured out a way to take advantage of them all.
It appears you read it more closely than I did.
I read her first book--a 'gift' from my publisher to see how not to
write a book.
OK, provide ONE single post where I "praise everything each of them
do"? Just one. How about it. You've made a claim, now either
support it or once again run away like the coward you really are.
You support everything about the gurus and, in fact, long to be one.
That's obvious. Too many posts to go back over. You know what you do.
If you post your name I'll be surprised. You're gutless. And just
so you don't forget. EVERYTIME you ridicule me without disclosing
your name you are reaffirming all of my claims. There's only one way
out. But then, a little sniveling coward like you won't take it.
So what's in a name anyway? All that is is different letters, but the
name of the game is the same: You're a geek and easy to ridicule. So
simple....
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomghysel" <tomghysel@y...>
wrote:
> Can someone please explain to me what the discussion about Robs'
real name is? I'm missing something here.
Writers use pen names--which is a surprise to a closed-in computer
geek like Dick. My so-called real name has been mentioned several
times in front of thousands of people on vpfree, but this geek missed
it because it wasn't tied to some theory. I have a policy of not
posting it because of several reasons--mostly because it makes no
difference. I also said I would not do it, and I always do what I say
I am going to do. If others want to do it then it's up to them. If I
expect to use my strict discipline when playing, then i have to use
it in every aspect of my life.
Dick can't take the ridicule he asks for, and he loves to hate to
love me, but that's just tough love. Randy comes across as a fool who
walks behind a pied piper. Elliott came on out of nowhere and said a
few stupid things about my play, so I said a few about his. And I'm
right.
Rob Singer is NOT his real name. He challenges, bashes and
ridicules others while not having the guts to use his real name. It's
not just me, check out his responses to Randy and Elliot.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
> > I see I have to spell everything out for you. My point was that
> > the megaresorts on the strip are built from the profits of
addicted
> > "advantage players". If not brainwashed video poker players,
then
> > blackjack card counters.
> >
>
> Please provide supporting evidence for this clearly incorrect
> assertion.How about: The casinos always have the long-term advantage over
every game in the places, period.
And where's you evidence to support this clearly incorrect statement?
Nowhere, just like last time.
> > I doubt it's still there if you "pros" have been hammering it to
> > the tune of $12.08 per hour as you pointed out above. /sarcasm
>
> Since there are no published strategies for OEJs this statement
means
> nothing.What? You mean you're playing it without an advantage? What
would your Queen say about that? Hide your wrists, I see a flying
ruler coming at you!
If you've been reading my posts then you'd know I developed the
optimal strategy for OEJs myself.
Does anyone sense a familar style of posting here?
Dick
> How about: The casinos always have the long-term advantage over
> every game in the places, period.And where's you evidence to support this clearly incorrect
statement?
You need evidence AGAIN? Then the next time you go to LV, take a good
look up and to the right as you stand at the corner of LV Blvd. and
Trpocana. Only a make-believe nerd wouldn't comprehend that.
If you've been reading my posts then you'd know I developed the
optimal strategy for OEJs myself.
Then THAT's why you like to pretend you're such a video poker brute!
What a concept. Now I get it. All along you figured you were the end-
all who was just a tad bit smarter than the others that developed the
optimal play stuff AND MADE THEIR MONEY BY SELLING IT, yet you
couldn't cross that bridge to success and capitalize on your
spectacular creation. Translation: Your incredible jealousy of me. I
need to sell nothing but a book criticizing others for doing what you
also did, yet I developed a winning play strategy that makes real
money. Oh how it must hurt!
Does anyone sense a familar style of posting here?
First off, if you were the computer geek you play yourself out to be,
there's enough posts here that you would know how to determine if I
were sending them all or not. Next, I'm flattered that you would
believe I post common sense under more than one identity. Integrity,
wit, and sensibility seem to run with those who dispute your stupid
theories.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > In other words, the bell curve is only a crutch for you as you
> > waffle away with your theories.
>
> No waffling here, but Mr. MBS clearly didn't know the difference.
> that's what I wanted to know.
>
Although you will never admit to what you really do here, wannabees
search for and manufacture crutches wherever they can find them.
That
happens to be you.
Manufacturing is unnecessary, you provide all the hard evidence I
need.
> > I'm not convinced of that. Let's see--there's how many people
on
> > vpfree that can easily write on this one, and more people here
are in favor of stringing you up than me so far. A fine job, my
friend.
>
> You want to try that in english next time? If I've upset anyone
it's most likely for continuing this discussion with you. You're
already well known as an egotistical liar. I suspect most have
already filtered this topic out which makes your claims more than a
little suspect.Oh I see. When plan A doesn't pan out, try plan B. If you're such a
purist and you're concerned about who you upset (waawaawaa) then
you're a hypocrite on this subject too. You're very lost, and
constantly trying to fit in. The sign of an insecure soul. That's
why
you keep telling yourself "I'm doing a fine job".
Actually, I respect others' time. Therefore, I will not respond to
your rants in other threads. Nothing new anyway. Just your usual
cowardly responses.
>
> > Historical data means nothing? Guess how the B2 bomber was
> developed--on some kind of theory?
>
> Yes, lot's of theories AND experience and lot's of complicated
> mathematics.Duh. Guess what. No bomber is EVER manufactured on theory without
actual proof. The policy states that theories must be proven to
work
first--over and over until perfected. Gee, that kind of sounds
exactly like what I did.
Wrong again. You believe any major company would bet their life on
the few examples that you believe means something. Not on your life.
Ever heard of simulations? I would estimate that Boeing ran
simulations that would make your experiences infinitesimal in
comparison. This does not even include the actual testing.
>
> > Here's a flash, Einstein: THEY USED AS MUCH
> > HISTORICAL DATA AS WAS AVAILABLE, and thse who bid it did so
with
> > that data, and NOT some theoretical swag.
>
> You just made my point. "AS MUCH HISTORICAL DATA AS WAS
AVAILABLE".
> You ask people to take ONE example (you) and go with it.
No, YOU ask people that question, and you give them your twisted
answer at the same time.
You just asked again in the previous paragraph. Get serious.
I don't ask anyone to do anything and I
don't care about anyone else.
Then you should quit posting.
I offer advice and assistance with
every caveat required at all times. You don't get that because you
don't want to.
Your advice is a lie. Do you explain that? Do you tell people that if
they play negative games the expectation is they will lose?
Yet nowhere in Dancer's or the other 'guru's sales
pitches do they warn people that losing 70% of the time is sensible
to go out and do, or that most 'advantage play' people will lose
big
time, and the only way they will win is if they get extremely
lucky....as Dancer was during his special 6-month streak.
I don't care about Bob, your system is the topic of discussion.
>
> Clearly, you know about as much about how the world runs as any
mamas boy could. Try taking off the blinders someday. And, thanks
for
> making my point again.
Lots of knowledge went into those words of wisdom, I take it. All
you
do is clarify the point I made about why theoretical idiots such as
yourself are not allowed to manage anything significant in this
world, and why you virtual wannabees surround yourselves in a make-
believe world so you won't lose your minds.
A lot more knowledge went into my response then your ramblings above.
By the way, do you include geeks like Bill Gates in your
statement "theoretical idiots such as yourself are not allowed to
manage anything significant"?
>
> No, it's because it's the truth. First, I did some research where
I
> learned that VP could be positive. I used alt.rec.gambling to
extract a little info. Since the only "potentially" positive game
(OEJs) in my area was not mentioned in any of the literature, I had
no choice but to do my own analysis. I found a free program,
vpfreebie, that I could use to learn to game and I wrote my own
hand
analysis and game analysis programs.
Now isn't that just the path a geek would take to do anything--even
cook walleye. And here's another beam of light for your fading
style:
Indian casinos cheat people, McFly!! Hello!!! Looks like they
reeled
in another geek as planned - always knowing you would convince
yourself through your system of virtual reality that the games are
100% fair. Typical.
Although I'm sure cheating goes on in some Indian casinos, The
casinos I play at do not cheat. Initially they were managed by the
Grand Casinos which had a National reputation to uphold. Secondly,
they had to sign a compact with the state that required fair and
random games (copied almost directly from Nevadas' Regs). Finally,
they have such a good deal with the state it could only hurt them
financially to get caught cheating.
Of course, you'd say otherwise without a shred of evidence to support
your position. Where I have seen this before?
>
> Cop out. You are such a coward. First of all, advantage play is
> NOONEs' system. It's a direct interpretation of the math. Now,
let's see YOUR math from which YOU interpret YOUR system.Who's 'noone'? Never heard of him either. The gurus made it their
system by selling everything they could create about the subject.
Yes, that's called capitalism. Your problem? You didn't think of it
first? gotcha.
>
> > You're simply a parrot for them and you know it.
>
> Nope, you'd like it to be true but it isn't. You keep backing
away
> from me you sniveling coward.
You're a parrot and now an advertisement for the group who sells
false dreams. You ought to be arrested just like them.
I just deal in the facts. Unlike you!
>
>
> > Those who have supposedly won 'lots' of money, if true, have
only
done so because they've experienced more good luck than others.
>
> Now who's waffling?Huh? Read my site again. Says this everywhere, and I've said it
here.
Then read Dancer's book for his own verification.
I have no desire to read Bobs' book OR your site. Quit trying to
avoid the real issue. Your fraudulent system.
>
> Is there some point to this ramble? Gambling winnings are
generally
a result of better than average luck, losses are a result of worse
than average luck. All gamblers will have streaks of both. The only
> control one has is to play accurately and play positive games or
not play at all.So you are finally agreeing that winning play is based on good luck
and losing play is based on bad luck. Wonder of wonders.....
No, I've said that all along. Can you read?
You're
control theory is off a bit though. Since each session is an
independent event as is every hand, math has no control over what
may
or may not come out on the draw on that one particular hand.
This is the FACT that invalidates your fraudulent system. Thanks. The
math is what predicts what will happen over time.
That's
why special plays developed by me in order to reach certain goals
at
optimal times in my play sessions are just as likely to win as the
math hand is.
Neither your "special plays" or "the math" controls the results of
any single hand.
You know that, and everyone knows that.
Playing 'accurately' is far overrated, because it limits the
abilities of the player to think and react properly.
What a crock. There is no such thing as "react properly" when
randomness is assumed.
Of course, if a
player is committed to just sitting there and playing on and on and
on like a bored zombie, they'll never figure this out even when
told
at point blank range. Blinders are too thick.
That you are full of it? I already know that.
>
> My facts are perfectly straight. You claim all us are too stupid
to
> play VP correctly. I claim we're not.
Your facts remain distorted. I claim that no human can attain the
perfection or near-perfection required to win at positive games,
Yet, you provide nothing to back up this ridiculous assertion.
and
no one can ever play enough hands to get there anyway.
There is no "there". You are such an idiot. Some people will get way
ahead in the SHORT term, some won't. It doesn't matter whether
they're using expert play or not. The point is that MORE people will
win MORE money using expert play. All advantage play requires is that
one uses expert play whenever they choose to gamble. Long term is not
required.
>
> I realize you have no idea what's involved in a mathematical
proof.
> You still think the earth is flat. "General approach" makes a
proof
> is more ENCOMPASSING. You are such an idiot.
'General approach' is a cop out statement for theorists. That's you.
You mean the greatest minds in physics that are still looking for
a "general approach" to describe natures' forces is a "cop out"?. Of
course, without this supposed "cop out" we wouldn't have TVs,
computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Just a post ago you were asking who Reid is. Now you've waffled
> completely around again. You have no clue.The clue is that his statements were made by many people around the
world. You idolize him because he's as vague as you are. In your
mind
he's a silent hero, but once you try to push his nonsense on
someone
intelligent then you run into that noise you can't stand.
No, my point is you were caught in another lie. Are we over a hundred
yet?
>
> Then you are a pretty poor excuse for a human being. You know, if
> you'd get to know more people, then you'd understand that it's
not
> that easy to generalize everyone to meet your preconceived ideas.
Generalizing is the mark of a theorist....like you. I deal with
reality,
Guess again. Your "reality" includes a flat earth.
and the reality here is that you keep inserting another foot
into your mouth nearly every time you write. How many do you have
anyway?
You mean like catching you in all these lies? Keep scrambling, you
keep proving my points over and over.
>
> > And you don't believe that a video poker player MUST have above-
> > average self-respect in order to own the discipline &
determination that make up a winning player?
>
> That's not what we were talking about.Answer the question.
Why should I? You intentionally changed the subject to avoid my
direct response to you. If you want to disucss self-respect I'd start
by being truthful with your responses and giving out your real name.
Until then you are just a low-life, sniveling coward with NO self-
respect.
You made a generalization that VP players are fat and lazy and now
you're trying to change the subject, again. Now, if only you had
the
SELF-RESPECT to state your name when ridiculing others.
Get with the program in more ways than one! Michael Savage tells
the
truth (ridicules, to you) about everyone he mentions, and that's
not
his 'real' name. It's common. Skip Hughes ridicules all players by
feeding them his nonsense and expecting them to be dumb enough to
believe it.
They are not ridiculing me. You are! Either have the guts to use your
real name or slide back into that yellow slimy hole you crawled out
of.
The plain fact is, most vp players ARE fat, they're low
in self-respect & self-confidence, they drink too much, and a high
percentage of them smoke. Perfect gamblers for ANY casino manager.
I
wouldn't expect that to be the 'general' case for members of
vpfree,
since they have the money to buy computers, etc. But on the whole,
as
you scout the locals joints, that's the very pathetic picture
you'll
see.
The bigot appears once more. Interestingly I don't see that "picture"
when I visit the locals casinos. I see a large group of diverse
people with the same attributes I see everywhere else.
>
> > Check with Sue at
> > Ramada Express on a $10 BP machine that I beat the hell out of--
ask why it's gone! Kind of puts a kink in that theory....again.
>
> Actually, it supports my theory. You, on the other hand, should
be
> happy with any negative machine where you can play flat earth
system.There's that waffle again. When stuck, agree nebulously.
No waffle here. I'm the one here that uses the fact that casinos pull
out the games that are not profitable. And, since these happen to be
high payback machines it means advantage play must be taking its'
toll. So, keep proving my point, I love it.
>
> I said >.25. You removed my ">" symbol. What a fool. When you
resort to editing my posts you come across as completely dishonest.
I
> already knew that and now it's obvious to everyone.
You're getting increasingly nervous. I did no editing.
And, you just snipped the lie. But, since I know how to access old
posts here it is. I stated on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 3:47 pm, "are you
saying Sams Town has >.25 FPDW", and you quoted me on Tue Aug 24,
2004 at 6:26 pm, with "are you saying Sams Town has .25 FPDW.". You
can try and run and hide but it won't work. You are as dishonest as
it gets.
>
> So, now you're running. No surprise. You are such a coward. What
> happened to your 10000:1 odds? I'm more than happy to put up my
$60. Just set the time and place.It's $300k earnst money. Got it? If not, even an unemployed 21 year
old can come up with 60 bucks. Be a man. Not a chicken.
You made the offer. I'm accepting. And if needed I can come up with
the $300,000 no problem. Just to remind you here's what you posted on
Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 4:03 pm:
You quoted my comment of:
Tell you what, I'll meet you at Sams' Town in 2 months and you can
introduce me to this casino manager and I can ask him/her directly.
and responded with:
"I'll do it, but 10000:1 you're afraid to meet me. ..."
Don't kid yourself, I knew you would never back up your stupid
challenge. You don't have the guts and, as hard to believe as it is,
even you aren't THAT stupid.
>
> How about when you get back. You set the time and the location in
LV, that was YOUR challenge. Just remember to put up the cash first.I'm always around. It's $300k.
Like I said, no problem. And, if you persist ... you'll owe me
$600,000 after our meeting. Do you really want to go on? All I have
to do is show up to make $600,000. I think I can handle that ...
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > How about: The casinos always have the long-term advantage over
> > every game in the places, period.
>
> And where's you evidence to support this clearly incorrect
statement?You need evidence AGAIN? Then the next time you go to LV, take a
good
look up and to the right as you stand at the corner of LV Blvd. and
Trpocana. Only a make-believe nerd wouldn't comprehend that.
Comprehend what? That millions of NON-advantage players come to LV
every year and play negative games. Yep, I understand that perfectly.
You must be a complete moron to think your response had the least bit
of intellectual content.
> If you've been reading my posts then you'd know I developed the
> optimal strategy for OEJs myself.Then THAT's why you like to pretend you're such a video poker
brute!
What a concept. Now I get it.
I doubt that!
All along you figured you were the end-
all who was just a tad bit smarter than the others that developed
the
optimal play stuff AND MADE THEIR MONEY BY SELLING IT,
No, I assumed I was too late when I came across winpoker. I had
previouly thought about producing something similar.
yet you
couldn't cross that bridge to success and capitalize on your
spectacular creation.
Because it had already been done.
Translation: Your incredible jealousy of me.
Your ego is showing again. Dream on slimeball.
I
need to sell nothing but a book criticizing others for doing what
you
also did, yet I developed a winning play strategy that makes real
money. Oh how it must hurt!
Not in the least. I get such a good feeling from exposing you as the
liar, fraud and bigot that you are.
> Does anyone sense a familar style of posting here?
First off, if you were the computer geek you play yourself out to
be,
there's enough posts here that you would know how to determine if I
were sending them all or not. Next, I'm flattered that you would
believe I post common sense under more than one identity.
Integrity,
wit, and sensibility seem to run with those who dispute your stupid
theories.
Actually, this has given me another opportunity to show what a stupid
coward you really are.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Now given your play of 400 credits at the $25 level, how many
> sessions should it take, on average, for someone to hit a RF at
the
> $25 level? 20? 30? Even 10*17,200 comes out to $172,000 in
losses.
> Actually, it will come out that expectation is the same as the
games payback. What a concept.I don't care about royals at the $25 level -- you do. I go home
immediately after every royal. Playing $25 is not common because I
usually don't need to. Now go back and do your theoretical math
some
more so it fits reality this time.
See below.
>
> And luck plays no part in your results? Sure. You've indicated
> previously you don't consider yourself lucky.The words were: I experience no more good luck than you or anyone
else who plays the game.
You stated above that "Playing $25 is not common" and now, "I
experience no more good luck ... " yet you have hit a $100,000 RF.
You think that's not lucky. What a moron.
I simply take complete advantage of the
times it comes along. And unlike addicts -- who must keep playing
through good luck until it turns bad, or who feel the need to
advance
in denomination out of some uncontrollable compulsion -- my goals
are
set in order that I may stop playing and leave right then and there.
More BS in an attempt to hide the FACT that you've simply been lucky.
>
> > But I do have one of those royals, as
> > well as several $10 and numerous 5's.
>
> So you admit you've been lucky. Now you see why you're ahead. It
has nothing to do with your system.No. Read the above again. And I do play for RF's more than optimal
play calls for. That's why I get some of them. My numbers suggest I
get them about once every 34,000 hands on average.
More to the point, how often have you gotten them on the higher
denoms?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> You don't understand the use of leverage in the business sense?
I'm
> amazed. Where did you get that MBS, you said Boston College? Are
you sure it wasn't Boston elementary school?Your view on leverage is typically distorted as everything is. The
only 'leverage' a computer weeny owns is the ability to receive
gobs
of sympathy from others because they look funny, act weird, and
have
to have everything written down theoretically before they can begin
to understand it.
So, Mr. MBS you admit you have no idea what "leverage" means?
>
> Easy on that bottle Rob. The point is THIS discussion is about
you
> and your fraudulent system.
I go easy on the booze I own.
Sure you do.
>
> > Doubts are just more feel-good theories that people without
much
> > experience continually use. Remind you of anyone?
>
> It's much better to have a "feel-good theory" that actually
works,
> then to be a lying bigot who doesn't have the balls to state his
own name. Remind you of anyone?If it works then it's no theory. Read my statement about 'doubts'
above and enjoy it again.
I don't doubt the theory, it works. Your the only airhead that
doesn't think so and then runs and hides when simply asked "what's
your name".
>
> They're willing to put up with a few stiffs if they can attract
more gamblers.Wrong. Stiffs mean nothing to them unless they come in with
gamblers
who think they know-it-all.
You say "wrong" and then repeat what I said almost word for word. You
really can't help but make yourself look like an imbecile.
>
> > They couldn't care less about those who don't play--you know,
> > like the geek convention of tekkies held almost every year in
LV.
> > That's hotel business only. Those nimrods are useless to
casinos,
> and only go there for the titty shows, the cheap buffets, and and
to see the new gadgets some other geek developed.
>
> You mean something like the computer in front of you.Yup. I use those fools for my beck and call all the time.
Of course you do ...
>
> It appears you read it more closely than I did.I read her first book--a 'gift' from my publisher to see how not to
write a book.
Of course it was ...
>
> OK, provide ONE single post where I "praise everything each of
them
> do"? Just one. How about it. You've made a claim, now either
support it or once again run away like the coward you really are.You support everything about the gurus and, in fact, long to be
one.
That's obvious. Too many posts to go back over. You know what you
do.
Yep, call you on another lie. I'm getting real good at it.
>
> If you post your name I'll be surprised. You're gutless. And just
so you don't forget. EVERYTIME you ridicule me without disclosing
your name you are reaffirming all of my claims. There's only one
way
out. But then, a little sniveling coward like you won't take it.
So what's in a name anyway?
Stating your name means you have the guts to stand up for what you
say. Clearly, you think being a coward must be something to be proud
of. That's why you will always be known as the gutless, lying, bigot
of the VP community.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomghysel" <tomghysel@y...>
wrote:
> > Can someone please explain to me what the discussion about
Robs'
> real name is? I'm missing something here.
Writers use pen names--which is a surprise to a closed-in computer
geek like Dick.
And, they don't go bashing others using that name. You're the only
one, Robbie. Put up or shut up.
... and I always do what I say
I am going to do.
We'll see how that works out with the $600,000.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
Manufacturing is unnecessary, you provide all the hard evidence I
need.
I guess I do provide all the crutches you need.
> Oh I see. When plan A doesn't pan out, try plan B. If you're such
a purist and you're concerned about who you upset (waawaawaa) then
> you're a hypocrite on this subject too. You're very lost, and
> constantly trying to fit in. The sign of an insecure soul. That's
why you keep telling yourself "I'm doing a fine job".Actually, I respect others' time. Therefore, I will not respond to
your rants in other threads. Nothing new anyway. Just your usual
cowardly responses.
You saint you. The original waffle man. First a brute who hacks away
on the Internet aimlessly - then a saint who respects other's time.
You do a fine job.....
> Duh. Guess what. No bomber is EVER manufactured on theory without
> actual proof. The policy states that theories must be proven to
work first--over and over until perfected. Gee, that kind of sounds
> exactly like what I did.Wrong again. You believe any major company would bet their life on
the few examples that you believe means something. Not on your
life. Ever heard of simulations? I would estimate that Boeing ran
simulations that would make your experiences infinitesimal in
comparison. This does not even include the actual testing.
I have to say DUH again here. When you haven't the knowledge to
respond with sense, why not say so? Try that saintly hat on again.
You couldn't begin to understand the testing that we all went thru on
the thing. Then you compare simulations of a B2 bomber to my play
strategy! Here's another flash, Ace. The simulations were run by the
subs, and the actual testing was done at Boeing. I hate to make you
look dumber by the word, but the simulations at Boeing were for pilot
knowledge and familiarity only, and closely scrutinized by human
factors engineering. So hold the 'estimates', the 'simulations' and
all the other theoretical guessing until you become more educated (if
that's possible).
> No, YOU ask people that question, and you give them your twisted
> answer at the same time.You just asked again in the previous paragraph. Get serious.
Here's serious: You ask people that question and then you give them
your twisted (but clear in your theoretical mind to you) answer.
> I don't ask anyone to do anything and I don't care about anyone
else.
Then you should quit posting.
I always respond to everyone. Just because it bothers you is one more
reason I do so.
Your advice is a lie. Do you explain that? Do you tell people that
if they play negative games the expectation is they will lose?
No, I tell them they don't need to play positive expectation games to
win. See how you twist the truth?
>
A lot more knowledge went into my response then your ramblings
above. By the way, do you include geeks like Bill Gates in your
statement "theoretical idiots such as yourself are not allowed to
manage anything significant"?
Let me give you a hint Ricky: You're no Bill Gates.
Although I'm sure cheating goes on in some Indian casinos, The
casinos I play at do not cheat. Initially they were managed by the
Grand Casinos which had a National reputation to uphold. Secondly,
they had to sign a compact with the state that required fair and
random games (copied almost directly from Nevadas' Regs). Finally,
they have such a good deal with the state it could only hurt them
financially to get caught cheating.
Of course, you'd say otherwise without a shred of evidence to
support your position. Where I have seen this before?
Well isn't that a fresh dose of the truth--sort of like a cool breeze
on a hot day. A geek that finds as many ways as possible to talk
himself into believing that the games where HE plays are fair! Here's
something to do in your spare time. Go to the state gaming commission
and ask to see the regs that include their certification that your
video poker games are 100% random. When they give you BS, try asking
the redsticks for the same info. I guarantee each will refer you back
to the other. I ran into that in Connecticut and here. Exactly the
same. It ends up there's no proof either way, so that's like
saying "it's OK to play on-line because they have a reputation to
uphold". Anyone stupid enough to play at Indian casinos deserves to
play on-line also. Those buy-in bonuses are great, aren't they, and
they sure go a long way in pushing some games over 100%!!
> Who's 'noone'? Never heard of him either. The gurus made it their
> system by selling everything they could create about the subject.Yes, that's called capitalism. Your problem? You didn't think of it
first? gotcha.
Huh? Explain 'gotcha'. If you mean what I think you are trying to
somehow say, I didn't need to think of it because at the time I was
making far more money than any of those jamokes you cherish. And if i
thought of it first I would have done it truthfully--not like we have
now.
> > Nope, you'd like it to be true but it isn't. You keep backing
away from me you sniveling coward.
That's what a parrot would say.
>
I have no desire to read Bobs' book OR your site. Quit trying to
avoid the real issue. Your fraudulent system.
If you keep waffling away from the subject every time you can't come
up with a response that makes sense, why mess around with a superior
intelligence as myself? You haven't proven anything positive OR
negative about ANY system including your own--except to say you've
conquered one-eyed jacks (whatever that Indian game is).
> So you are finally agreeing that winning play is based on good
luck and losing play is based on bad luck. Wonder of wonders.....
No, I've said that all along. Can you read?
Yeah, when you write it.
> You're
> control theory is off a bit though. Since each session is an
> independent event as is every hand, math has no control over what
may
> or may not come out on the draw on that one particular hand.This is the FACT that invalidates your fraudulent system. Thanks.
The math is what predicts what will happen over time.
So untrue. If each individual hand is independent, it's very foolish
to pretend that time will overcome that. It's an unsupportable geek
theory that is only there as a feel-good position for players who
just can't stop playing when they should.
Neither your "special plays" or "the math" controls the results of
any single hand.
There's no control anywhere. The big hands will not show up if you
don't give them the chance to on certain deals. That's common sense.
What a crock. There is no such thing as "react properly" when
randomness is assumed.
What a nut! Read it again.
> Your facts remain distorted. I claim that no human can attain the
> perfection or near-perfection required to win at positive games,Yet, you provide nothing to back up this ridiculous assertion.
And you provide nothing to support it. If you have credentials to
support experience in Human Factors engineering, produce them.
Otherwise your theories are as boring today as the day someone else
started blowing them out to the public.
There is no "there". You are such an idiot. Some people will get
way ahead in the SHORT term, some won't. It doesn't matter whether
they're using expert play or not. The point is that MORE people
will win MORE money using expert play. All advantage play requires is
that one uses expert play whenever they choose to gamble. Long term
is not required.
First it is then it isn't required. My my my. You go on and on with
your nonsense, and all it does is make you look like a thick geek. Is
your life just one big theory too? Prove it isn't....on paper.
You mean the greatest minds in physics that are still looking for
a "general approach" to describe natures' forces is a "cop out"?.
Of course, without this supposed "cop out" we wouldn't have TVs,
computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc., etc., etc.
At a certain early-on point, general approach may be the right
decription. Applying it to where we are in video poker is nothing but
reaching for straws when there's no where else to turn. In other
words, it's how computer fairies document their existence.
> Generalizing is the mark of a theorist....like you. I deal with
> reality,Guess again. Your "reality" includes a flat earth.
I seem to recall where you say that without proof. And from a
computer geek?
You mean like catching you in all these lies? Keep scrambling, you
keep proving my points over and over.
And keep inserting the foot into the mouth. You haven't told one
truth yet here. Remember, you computer fairies like to make-believe
it's real because you can't seem to 'get there'. But the foot is
special to your type, because at least you've accomplished something.
> > That's not what we were talking about.
>
> Answer the question.Why should I?
Because people who don't answer direct questions are suspect and of
no added value.
You intentionally changed the subject to avoid my
direct response to you. If you want to disucss self-respect I'd
start by being truthful with your responses and giving out your real
name. Until then you are just a low-life, sniveling coward with NO
self respect.
It hurts looking not-all-that-deeply inside your soul, doesn't it....
They are not ridiculing me. You are! Either have the guts to use
your real name or slide back into that yellow slimy hole you crawled
out of.
Who cares besides you? The point is, you can't take ridicule,
criticism, or even a cloudy day.
The bigot appears once more. Interestingly I don't see
that "picture" when I visit the locals casinos.
Let me guess why that is. Hmmmm.... Ok, I'll be kind this time.
I see a large group of diverse people with the same attributes I see
everywhere else.
And with the same self-controlled blindness you utilize all the time.
No waffle here. I'm the one here that uses the fact that casinos
pull out the games that are not profitable. And, since these happen
to be high payback machines it means advantage play must be taking
its' toll. So, keep proving my point, I love it.
Casinos pull games that either are not profitable OR do not attain
the win percentage they set for it. In the case of the suncoast, the
games did not attain the percentage. The BP game I talked about was
being beaten badly. But curiously, professor, they STILL have every
one of their up-to-$5 10/7 DB games on the floor, and have recently
added more. So by saying something stupid again like "advantage play
must be taking its toll" you are once again, hoping for a feel-good
position to make your theories pan out. Guess again, because that's
all you're doing.
And, you just snipped the lie. But, since I know how to access old
posts here it is. I stated on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 3:47 pm, "are
you
saying Sams Town has >.25 FPDW", and you quoted me on Tue Aug 24,
2004 at 6:26 pm, with "are you saying Sams Town has .25 FPDW.". You
can try and run and hide but it won't work. You are as dishonest as
it gets.
Are you nervous or what? Get over your mistake!
Don't kid yourself, I knew you would never back up your stupid
challenge. You don't have the guts and, as hard to believe as it
is, even you aren't THAT stupid.
The only reason you came up with such a large $600k number is because
you ARE afraid to meet me, bozo. Imagine how your inferiority complex
would cause you an anxiety attack at the meet?
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> You need evidence AGAIN? Then the next time you go to LV, take a
good look up and to the right as you stand at the corner of LV
Blvd. and Trpocana. Only a make-believe nerd wouldn't comprehend that.
Comprehend what? That millions of NON-advantage players come to LV
every year and play negative games. Yep, I understand that
perfectly. You must be a complete moron to think your response had
the least bit of intellectual content.
So now we have to ask you to prove how it's 'millions of NON-
advantage players" who pay for the tall buildings--and not the
foolish, compulsive-gambling 'advantage' players. Just how stupid are
you anyway? Your only answer is that and it's a crutch as I said. You
haven't any meaningful response as to why the Suncoast was the most
successful casino of all time, when all they did was concentrate in
reeling-in all you idiotic 'advantage' players.
> All along you figured you were the end-
> all who was just a tad bit smarter than the others that developed
the optimal play stuff AND MADE THEIR MONEY BY SELLING IT,No, I assumed I was too late when I came across winpoker. I had
previouly thought about producing something similar.
The story of your life maybe? So now you've been forced by the Injuns
to play OEJ's or whatever it is you call it. Your video poker fantasy
life passed you by, so you reach out and touch an Indian. What a tale!
> Translation: Your incredible jealousy of me.
Your ego is showing again. Dream on slimeball.
You radiate jealousy every time I see a post from you. Kind of like
when you were in your 20's (remember waaaay back then?) and at a
party you met a girl (before you were a geek-idiot, of course) who
just had that look on her face that said "give it to me here and NOW,
big boy!". Well, that's a good analogy of what I get from you in the
jealousy dept.
Not in the least. I get such a good feeling from exposing you as
the liar, fraud and bigot that you are.
And my 2nd book is going to be available later this week. How'd ya
like them apples, Dicky.
Actually, this has given me another opportunity to show what a
stupid coward you really are.
So you're saying you don't know how to check posts to see where they
came from? What kind of geek are you anyway??
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> The words were: I experience no more good luck than you or anyone
> else who plays the game.You stated above that "Playing $25 is not common" and now, "I
experience no more good luck ... " yet you have hit a $100,000 RF.
You think that's not lucky. What a moron.
He dufus, if I were still playing at dollars when I hit that
(translation, if I didn't PROGRESS IN DENOMINATION, McFly) then it
would have been just as lucky but paid only $4000. The progression
doesn't have anything to do with luck. It's part of the overall
Winning Play Strategy that you haven't figured out yet (at least on
your theoretical paper).
More BS in an attempt to hide the FACT that you've simply been
lucky.
Again, clean out your eyes. I'm no luckier than you or anyone else. I
know how to set goals and quit at them. It's as simple as that. My
good hands are no more than anyone elses. The progression has nothing
to do with the good hands. How thick are you anyway?
More to the point, how often have you gotten them on the higher
denoms?
I don't have a need to keep track of that meaningless statistic.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: