--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > 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.....
Thanks.
>
> > 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.
Not surprising, it's pretty much the sum of your intellect.
When you haven't the knowledge to
respond with sense, why not say so?
I have the knowledge, you have only idiotic responses that contradict
your previous claims.
Try that saintly hat on again.
You couldn't begin to understand the testing that we all went thru
on
the thing.
Do you think that the one company that you happen to be familar with
has the patent on thorough testing? You are so stupid it boggles the
mind.
Then you compare simulations of a B2 bomber to my play
strategy!
Actually, you did it. I stated your experiences were NOT comparable
to the simulations.
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,
That's because the other simulations were run by the subs. Are you
implying Boeing would not take responsibilty for the sims? Are you a
complete moron?
and closely scrutinized by human
factors engineering.
You think that's something different? You should get out once in a
while. I worked 30 years in product development and all you're doing
is reciting the manufacturing bible.
So hold the 'estimates', the 'simulations' and
all the other theoretical guessing until you become more educated
(if
that's possible).
By the way, thanks for verifying exactly what I said. My point was
that they do far more testing and simulations than you could ever
hope to match with your miserable little VP history.
> > 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.
Another lie by the champ. You started this thread way back in April.
So, it had nothing to do with "respond"ing to someone. You wanted to
get your enormous ego satisfied.
>
> 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?
Exactly what I meant. You bend the truth by promising small sessions
wins without a thread of evidence that they will win over time.
> >
> 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.
Didn't say I was, Robbie. Just showing one example that completely
invalidates your stupid assertion.
>
> 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.
Surprising you'd recognize it. You have confused lying with telling
the truth so many times.
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.
Would you like to bet another 600K on it? The compact states that any
machine contested MUST be pulled of the floor until validated by an
outside source.
> > 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.
Was that before or after they fired your butt.
And if i
thought of it first I would have done it truthfully--not like we
have
now.
ROTFLMAO. Of course you would have ... Just like you do 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.
Get used to it.
> >
> 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,
Oh, my response made perfect sense, that's why you're trying to
change the subject. Won't work, loser.
why mess around with a superior
intelligence as myself?
Of course you are ... just keep saying it, Dorothy.
You haven't proven anything positive OR
negative about ANY system
I don't have to. It's already been done which I've pointed out to you
several times. Is reading comprehension the reason you were fired?
including your own--except to say you've
conquered one-eyed jacks (whatever that Indian game is).
Your ignorance is running rampant. OEJs is an IGT game.
>
> > 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.
Or, maybe, after I written it a hundred times. Your success rate is
not very good.
>
> > 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 called simple statistics. And, nothing overcomes anything (other
than alcohol overcoming your brain function). You keep showing your
utter lack of knowledge.
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.
Has nothing to do with theory. Just plain old simple statistics.
>
> 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.
I love it when you make these absurd statements. You infer that you
can somehow "manage" luck just because you've been lucky. You remind
me of the old rainmakers of the 1800s. I bet some of them actually
thought they could make rain, too. They probably got started because
they got it to rain at first. Pure and simple LUCK.
>
> What a crock. There is no such thing as "react properly" when
> randomness is assumed.
What a nut! Read it again.
Aside from the fact you snipped it, I don't need to. I stand by
statement. You somehow believe that you can control the outcome of
random deals. It just ain't so, Sparky.
>
> > 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.
I could agree to disagree here except for the fact that your ENTIRE
system is predicated on this assumption. You could never say
otherwise because then you'd have NOTHING to foster your scam against.
If you have credentials to
support experience in Human Factors engineering, produce them.
Maybe you'd like to see some old 1960s typing tests where skilled
typists could achieve rates of over 100 words a minute while
maintaining insignificant error rates. Oh, wait, you'll probably
assert typing is so much more difficult than VP it wouldn't count ...
Or, maybe typing is done by robots ... Or, your typical cop out
ridicule.
Otherwise your theories are as boring today as the day someone else
started blowing them out to the public.
Not theories, little Robbie, FACTs.
>
> 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.
Please show me anywhere where I stated that the long term was
REQUIRED for success? You can't because I would never say it. And, as
usual, that makes your response another lie.
If you didn't understand, let me say it again. People can win right
away using advantage play. Did YOU not understand this simple fact? I
know you'd never admit it since it would also foil your scam.
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.
Lost for an intelligent reply, Robbie girl? Won't be the last time.
>
> 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.
Still lost, Robbie. Can't you think of one intelligent thing to say?
>
> 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.
The only truth here IS what I say. You've already been caught in so
many lies that you can't possibly say otherwise. But then you will
anyway, and it will just be another lie.
>
> > > 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 should try finishing my paragraph before making yourself look
like a complete idiot ... again.
> 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....
ROTFL. Only in your alcohol numbed dreams.
>
> 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.
I take it just fine which appears to bother you to no end. Also, it
clearly shows what a cowardly slimeball you really are.
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, unlike you, I actually take the time to look around instead of
making worthless generalizations. Do you even have a clue that you've
already slammed about 99+% of the entire population? It's obvious to
anyone that you do this in a weak attempt to make yourself look good.
You are beyond transparent.
>
> 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.
That's another way of saying they are not profitable. Is redundant
your middle name?
In the case of the suncoast, the
games did not attain the percentage.
My point exactly, are you going somewhere with this?
The BP game I talked about was
being beaten badly.
But that wasn't at the Suncoast. Your point?
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.
Now you've brought up machines at two casinos and then use "they" to
refer to what? Both? Who knows?
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.
And how many $5 FPDW does Suncoast have? In fact, they don't have ANY
FPDW at all? Could it been the extra margin and easy strategy for
FPDW? Of course it is, but then you'd have to admit that enough
advantage players can actually play well enough to beat the house and
reduce the house edge to the point the game is not considered
profitable. That would ruin little Robbies' scam.
As for DB, that's easy to see by anyone who's not trying to promote
their own scam. The small margin and difficulty involved with the
strategy still permits the game to be profitable for the casino. If
only one in twenty can beat the game and then only by .17%, the
casino can still make plenty of money.
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!
I see you're lying again? And, to cover up another lie. Pretty much
puts your entire personality into a nutshell.
>
> 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?
No, I came up with it because you stated you had won $600K and you
offered me 10000:1 odds to meet you. Now, I see you're backing out
just like I predicted. Just put up your money and I'll be there. Of
course, a mealy-mouthed coward like you will run forever. Oh, and I
see you once again snipped your post that start this topic. Do I need
to retrieve it for you again?
This little topic clearly shows that little Robbie will make any
claim/challenge and then run and hide when taken up on it. No wonder
you won't use your real name. After this, if anyone ever believes
anything you say or write they are way too gullible.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
