vpFREE2 Forums

Refreshing information

#21

Oh god. What if you hit the $2100 royal on your first hand??? How
much did it "cost" then?

And if I don't want to sit there and play 600 "expert" hands per
hour, maybe only enough to win $25, how much does it "cost" me then?

Good lord, do you guys REALLY believe all this stuff? I'm bewildered
and laughing uncontrollably at the same time, honestly.
-Tom

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

Yesterday I played at a casino with a small progressive 8/5 Bonus at
$2100 plus slot club points.
The "cost" is $1400.
You should lose the $1400 before you hit the $2100. If you do this
often enough, that is the result. The casino has the edge in that
they are only adding 0.5% to the meter and the underlying game is

not

wonderful and the players PLAY IMPROPERLY.
If you play correctly, and often enough, the above WILL happen. It
has been thus for me for the last 15 years. I have lost millions,

but

···

have won millions plus. I can prove this and if you want to make a
small $10,000 wager, I will be happy to take your money.

#22

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:
This year plus $35,000 so far.

I was wondering about this. We are end of July, let's assume you have
played 200 games this year. Let's assume the machine gives you a
profit of 1%, which is more than FPDW. You have then recycled
$3,500,000 this year. If the machine was one line quarters, then this
means you have played 2,800,000 hands so far. In 200 days that is
14,000 hands a day. Let's assume you are fast and play 1,000 hands a
day. Then under the conditions above you have played 14 hours of VP
almost every day of the year. I was right about having to
employ "long hours", at least.

I'm sure the situation I described above is not the one you lived
through, but if I wer in Las Vegas and a Sports Book took my bet on
this, I would be willing to bet you have played about not less than
four hours almost every day of this year, unless there is something
about advantage VP play that escapes me.

#23

OOps, I meant 200 days, not games.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro

<videopoker@m...>

wrote:
This year plus $35,000 so far.

I was wondering about this. We are end of July, let's assume you

have

played 200 games this year. Let's assume the machine gives you a
profit of 1%, which is more than FPDW. You have then recycled
$3,500,000 this year. If the machine was one line quarters, then

this

means you have played 2,800,000 hands so far. In 200 days that is
14,000 hands a day. Let's assume you are fast and play 1,000 hands

a

···

day. Then under the conditions above you have played 14 hours of VP
almost every day of the year. I was right about having to
employ "long hours", at least.

I'm sure the situation I described above is not the one you lived
through, but if I wer in Las Vegas and a Sports Book took my bet on
this, I would be willing to bet you have played about not less than
four hours almost every day of this year, unless there is something
about advantage VP play that escapes me.

#24

You're making one of those bored old-man geek mistakes once again! I
stated nothing what or if I could read anything, and I read only the
parts we're discussing. You know what they say about assumptions.....

···

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

So, in other words you had know idea how to read the proof even
though you previously stated otherwise. Clearly demonstating, once
again, that you are a bold face liar.

#25

You're contradicting yourself AGAIN. First you say winning is the
only proof required that your system works, and now you say it's

your system and not winning. You can't have it both ways. If it isn't

winning then show us a proof. If it is winning then you must be a

big believer in the lottery. This really shows you'll say anything to
avoid a factual discussion of VP.

Say what? I do believe you need some tutoring in the English language
by the Queen. She needs the money if you have any.

···

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

#26

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

Last year (2003) was one of my worst, so my 3 year average only hit
$50,000 plus perks plus comps. I do NOT pay for gasoline or airline
tickets.

I'm sorry, but I wish I knew what you were saying here. What airline
tickets and/or gasoline? I thought you lived there.

My credit meter also goes down but when I hit, it exceeds all of the
losses previously lost. This year plus $35,000 so far.
absolutely WITHOUT "special" plays which almost always go against

the established methods.

I think you need to clarify what you're saying here, as I tried to a
few days ago. I now am very familiar with the guy whose teams you
play on when the meters go up. When you lose you do not lose your
money, and when you hit the RF or whatever you're playing for, you
get a W2G for the total even though you are given only a percentage.
It's like having a video poker job. I too can produce absolute proof
that over the last 15 years, I earned well in excess of $2,000,000
from WORKING, but my vp profit is just over $600k since 1997. And now
since I play full-time, I'll net at least $150k this and in
subsequent years--and ABSOLUTELY most of it is and will be the result
of 'special plays'.

#27

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

Yesterday I played at a casino with a small progressive 8/5 Bonus at
$2100 plus slot club points.The "cost" is $1400.
You should lose the $1400 before you hit the $2100.

What kind of nonsense is this? You "should" hit the RF after $1400?
Do the machines telekinetically pass this information onto you? This
sounds like something from one of Elliott Fromm's mercy-hiring
columns.

If you play correctly, and often enough, the above WILL happen. It
has been thus for me for the last 15 years. I have lost millions,

buthave won millions plus. I can prove this and if you want to make a

small $10,000 wager, I will be happy to take your money.

First, just as everyone always asks me, how do you propose to 'prove'
this? I'm sure you have won a ton because you use other people's
money to play high-end progressives. And it's interesting how you
call the $10,000 wager 'small'. From my discussion with one of your
playing team members just now on the phone, I really don't think you
can afford to lose $10,000. Either way, I'm interested in how the
absolute proof will be presented before we proceed. Dancer asked me
to do that 3 years ago, and every time I came up with a way to prove
it he told me why that wasn't good enough. And he was right.

#28

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

wrote:

> So, in other words you had know idea how to read the proof even
> though you previously stated otherwise. Clearly demonstating,

once

> again, that you are a bold face liar.

You're making one of those bored old-man geek mistakes once again!

I

stated nothing what or if I could read anything, and I read only

the

parts we're discussing. You know what they say about

assumptions.....

And I quote from one of your previous posts

"Reid [...] and everything he references was considered when my
strategies were developed"

So, previously you indicated you "considered" everything. And now
your denying it. Once again proving you are a bold face liar.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#29

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

wrote:

> You're contradicting yourself AGAIN. First you say winning is the
> only proof required that your system works, and now you say it's
your system and not winning. You can't have it both ways. If it

isn't

> winning then show us a proof. If it is winning then you must be a
big believer in the lottery. This really shows you'll say anything

to

avoid a factual discussion of VP.

Say what? I do believe you need some tutoring in the English

language

by the Queen. She needs the money if you have any.

You can't get around this one Rob Singer. You can't have it both
ways. So, either put up or shut up, and I'd really prefer the shut up.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#30

Again, you make assumptions that make you appear even older than you
are. Read your own words above, and then tell me how you feel now
that you understand I paid 3 mathematicians from Germany, the UAE and
China (you see, I've never been confined to a place like Minnesota)
to review what I had put together before I finalized it with some of
the proposed changes they wanted to make. THEY are the ones who
considered every bit of the geek-gobblydegook, not me. I'd say you
now appear the bold face fool.

···

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

And I quote from one of your previous posts
"Reid [...] and everything he references was considered when my
strategies were developed"
So, previously you indicated you "considered" everything. And now
your denying it. Once again proving you are a bold face liar.

#31

up.

Of course you WOULDN'T prefer me to shut up. Otherwise, what else
would golden oldies do up there in boring, cold, monotonous Minnesota-
-home of the twinkies. Oh yes, dream about winning. Hmmm.... That
means you're dreaming about me! I'll be sure to wear long underware
so you won't 'shiver' too much.

···

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

You can't get around this one Rob Singer. You can't have it both
ways. So, either put up or shut up, and I'd really prefer the shut

#32

You two are a trip. :slight_smile:

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

wrote:

> You can't get around this one Rob Singer. You can't have it both
> ways. So, either put up or shut up, and I'd really prefer the

shut

up.

Of course you WOULDN'T prefer me to shut up. Otherwise, what else
would golden oldies do up there in boring, cold, monotonous

Minnesota-

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

-home of the twinkies. Oh yes, dream about winning. Hmmm.... That
means you're dreaming about me! I'll be sure to wear long underware
so you won't 'shiver' too much.

#33

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

wrote:

> And I quote from one of your previous posts
> "Reid [...] and everything he references was considered when my
> strategies were developed"
> So, previously you indicated you "considered" everything. And now
> your denying it. Once again proving you are a bold face liar.

Again, you make assumptions that make you appear even older than

you

are. Read your own words above, and then tell me how you feel now
that you understand I paid 3 mathematicians from Germany, the UAE

and

China (you see, I've never been confined to a place like Minnesota)
to review what I had put together before I finalized it with some

of

the proposed changes they wanted to make. THEY are the ones who
considered every bit of the geek-gobblydegook, not me. I'd say you
now appear the bold face fool.

Ha, ha, ha, ... ROTFL. This is so funny. So, you paid mathematicians,
the very same folks you continuously claim know nothing, to review
the proof. AND, you accept what they say and not the dozens of
mathematicians that say otherwise.

OK, show us their results. They must have written it down for you.

Of course, you can't since it never happened and this is nothing more
than one of your every present LIES.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#34

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

wrote:

> You can't get around this one Rob Singer. You can't have it both
> ways. So, either put up or shut up, and I'd really prefer the

shut

up.

Of course you WOULDN'T prefer me to shut up. Otherwise, what else
would golden oldies do up there in boring, cold, monotonous

Minnesota-

Let's see, for the last week the temp has been in the mid 70s with
light winds and low humidity. How does that compare with Arizona? I
think the heat has gone to your head, or fried your brain based on
some of your recent posts.

But, of course, you are really just trying to change the subject.
Won't work. You stated your wins are proof of your system and then
when asked why the many lottery winners aren't proof that everyone
should win playing the lottery, you continually try to change the
subject. Won't work. Explain to me the contradiction I pointed out
here.

Of course, you can't. Wins are not proof of anything except short
term luck. Your system is an unproveable fraud.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#35

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> > >
Ha, ha, ha, ... ROTFL. This is so funny. So, you paid
mathematicians, the very same folks you continuously claim know
nothing.

I didn't say mathematicians know nothing--another mistake by you,
Einstein. I said they haven't a clue when it comes to winning at
video poker. The 3 I'm talking about have never played the game or
even heard of it when we got together.

AND, you accept what they say and not the dozens of mathematicians
that say otherwise.

Absolutely, because I know the credentials of these people and they
were not just some hack on the Internet. All you guys might impress
each other--and have the burning need to impress each other--as you
ramble on with your nonsense on vpfree, Winpoker and elsewhere, but
I'd need to know a whole lot more before giving any of you $1500 to
review what I developed.

OK, show us their results. They must have written it down for you.

Of course, you can't since it never happened and this is nothing
more than one of your every present LIES.

I wonder how many here didn't expect you to write that down. It
smacks of jealousy...probably because of the obvious, but also
because you retirees long to find something to keep you busy, and
what I did on my own time might just have been the ticket to the
rest of your freezing days and long nights in minnesota.

#36

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

Let's see, for the last week the temp has been in the mid 70s with
light winds and low humidity. How does that compare with Arizona?

I think the heat has gone to your head, or fried your brain based on

some of your recent posts.

As I look outside EVERY day I either see or expect to see yet
another beautiful day--and in ANY season. No tornados, deep freezes,
strings of days with > 80% humidity, or the need to play video poker
in an Indian rip-off casino who's biggest guest has been Jean Scott.
And even in the 2-month "monsoon" season right now, we get humidity
all the way up to the high teens! Whew--I wish I were in Minnesota!
In fact, I'm taking a break right now to go for a swim in our
backyard, and we'll probably hit the sauna and jacuzzi before bed
tonight. Man, it's really AWFUL here.....

Of course, you can't. Wins are not proof of anything except short
term luck. Your system is an unproveable fraud.

You just explained it all yourself. Wins ARE short-term luck,
because ANY winning hand is the result of short-term luck. I just
devised a system on how to take advantage of whenever that good luck
comes along. As in frog language, it's Sooooo easy.

#37

You can't even tell the truth about the weather. The humidity is 26% in
Phoenix right now. Oh, I know what it is. You live in a special place that
has lower humidity than what the weather reports say.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: deadin7 [mailto:dead…@…com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:04 PM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Refreshing information

And even in the 2-month "monsoon" season right now, we get humidity
all the way up to the high teens! Whew--I wish I were in Minnesota!

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=585301629>

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

#38

You can't even tell the truth about the weather. The humidity is

26% in

Phoenix right now. Oh, I know what it is. You live in a special

place that

has lower humidity than what the weather reports say.

I'm looking at Weatherbug right now, and it says 21% for my zip code-
-which is a far cry from the one you're probably looking at from
downtown, the airport, or the slums of South Phoenix. When I wrote
the e-mail it said 18%. You're the type that'll probably lay a
criticizm on your Mother for having you. Oh, I know what it
is....that attitude comes from your frustrations of not being able
to beat the machines.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <randyc@U...> wrote:

#39

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> Let's see, for the last week the temp has been in the mid 70s

with

> light winds and low humidity. How does that compare with Arizona?
I think the heat has gone to your head, or fried your brain based

on

> some of your recent posts.

As I look outside EVERY day I either see or expect to see yet
another beautiful day--and in ANY season. No tornados, deep

freezes,

strings of days with > 80% humidity, or the need to play video

poker

Oh, and don't forget the wonderful smog. Let's compare recent heat
indices. MN in the 70s, AZ in 100s.

>
> Of course, you can't. Wins are not proof of anything except short
> term luck. Your system is an unproveable fraud.

You just explained it all yourself. Wins ARE short-term luck,
because ANY winning hand is the result of short-term luck. I just
devised a system on how to take advantage of whenever that good

luck

comes along. As in frog language, it's Sooooo easy.

Now you admit individual wins don't qualify, of course, before you
said that was your proof. Another lie. So, since you now admit it's
not a proof, let's see a real proof.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#40

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

Ha, ha, ha, ... ROTFL. This is so funny. So, you paid
mathematicians, the very same folks you continuously claim know
nothing.

I didn't say mathematicians know nothing--another mistake by you,
Einstein. I said they haven't a clue when it comes to winning at
video poker. The 3 I'm talking about have never played the game or
even heard of it when we got together.

Ok, give me their names and addresses. I will contact them to verify
your claim.

AND, you accept what they say and not the dozens of mathematicians
that say otherwise.

Absolutely, because I know the credentials of these people and they
were not just some hack on the Internet. All you guys might impress
each other--and have the burning need to impress each other--as you
ramble on with your nonsense on vpfree, Winpoker and elsewhere, but
I'd need to know a whole lot more before giving any of you $1500 to
review what I developed.

Another lie.

>
> OK, show us their results. They must have written it down for you.
> Of course, you can't since it never happened and this is nothing
> more than one of your every present LIES.

I wonder how many here didn't expect you to write that down. It
smacks of jealousy...probably because of the obvious, but also
because you retirees long to find something to keep you busy, and
what I did on my own time might just have been the ticket to the
rest of your freezing days and long nights in minnesota.

Another attempt to avoid the question. If you really had this
information it would be simple to just post it. Instead you attempt
to avoid the question by spewing another idiotic comment.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: