Interesting statement: "the temp really isn't an issue.", since you
brought up the subject to begin with. Looks like just another
obfuscation.
You made another elementary mistake here. The temp isn't an issue to
me. You're the one who harps on and on about how awful 110 must be.
Have you been so inaccurate throughout your entire life?
I only use strict logic when presented with problems to which
strict logic applies. You, only the other hand, avoid logic no matter
what the problem. As far as you lying. It's so obvious a 3 year old
could see it.
That's your first problem: You think everything's a problem to be
solved, because you can't accept anything as true. If someone won't
offer mathematical proof, then you dismiss it with that closed mind.
That really tells me what a sour life you've led. Imagine living with
you!
First, you indicate you understand Reid's proof and that it doesn't
apply. I respond with evidence that it does apply.
A statement by me and a statement by you. You've provided evidence
only to the point that you wanted to. You've never explained where
Reid specifically shows MY Play Strategy doesn't work--and you never
will be able to because it isn't there. So you become nebulous in a
defensive posture, and you were caught again.
Next, you all of sudden come up 3 with unverifiable math experts
from foreign countries as the ones that support your system.
Again an assumption. How many times are you going to fail your own
approach to logic here? I never said that they 'support' my system.
What they did was confirm/correct/upgrade what I presented to them,
for which they were paid initially as well as a small royalty
according to our signed Agreements.
I respond with a simple request for their names and addresses.
Nothing required relative to confidential information. You refuse.
So why should I comply with you? You refuse to meet me in LV, you are
afraid to bet with me, and for all I know you're nothing more than an
Internet hack like the others. All I see is a grouchy old man with
nothing better to do than trade e-mails with someone more successful
than you in video poker (and probably everything else too).
Next, you bring up confidentiality which has nothing to do with
names and addresses. Then, you bring up royalties which again has
nothing to do with names and adddress.
That's what your limited knowledge here says, and because you're a
stubborn old fellow we'll never get around that. Like I said--imagine
living with you.
If it were true you could easily verify it. Since you don't, you
are obviously lying.
....Or how about this scenario: I gain nothing by verifying anything
to an Internet hack like you. See the common sense in it yet?
However, none of your ficticious math experts are even required.
Reid's paper PROVES a progressive system CANNOT make a negative
game positive.
Please say that again, because I've NEVER heard that before! You're
such a slave to this stuff, and it's hilarious!
It gets back to the "flat earth" point I made earlier. Just like
the "flat earth" believers centuries ago stood up and said things
like "look around you, it's common sense that the earth is flat".
You stand up and argue against the simple math behind advantage play.
You look just as ridiculous to me as the "flat earthers" look to
everyone today.
Are you really that dense? Do you now STILL not see why I won't
bother supplying you with anything? "The earth is either round or
flat"--big surprise. It's either A or B, and it is defined by
science. Video poker is played by humans, and according to you, their
brains cannot come close to what's inside a computer. Robots don't
play the game--we do. You may enjoy approaching the game as a boring,
monotonous robot would--and get your rocks off in doing so because
you are so fascinated by numbers--but to those who realize we're
never going to be able to play even close to flawlessly for as long
as the 'numbers' say we need to in order to attain a useless, tiny
percentage, it isn't difficult to figure out what I have to beat the
machines so consistently. What your BIG problem is is that it wasn't
YOU who did that, so it means that can't POSSIBLY be true.
Please go back to the 3rd grade. Maybe your teacher can explain it
to you.
Kind of hard to argue common sense, isn't it.....
I thought you didn't believe in comps, I guess you're really just a
closet fan of the Queen after all.
There you are again--thinking. I thought all you math/computer geeks
are self-taught in the art of not thinking. I use a card on Romp
strategies, and with far less play than the Queen (yes, I factually
know how much she and her boyfriend play) I get 5 times the comps. I
guess you haven't read my article "The God of Comps".
Since you bypassed hundreds of mathematicians in the US (if not AZ)
I assumed they must be famous. Why else would you bother?
Yet another assumption! I was living in Munich at the time, and these
guys either worked for US Aerospace firms or were math professors in
the UK.
You need no proof of anything.
What's the matter--nervous about having to PROVE something?
I don't care about what they talked to you about. Just prove they
exist. Of course, you can't and this is just another tactic to avoid
admitting you lied about them all along.
OK, let's bet $10,000 on your assertion first, and then I'll give you
their phone humbers. (But you'll need me as the translator for the
Chinese).
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: