--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> 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?
You started it, oh great idiot, or can't you remember back less than
a week.
> 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.
Wrong again, oh great idiot, only math problems need a mathematical
proof. This IS a math problem.
That really tells me what a sour life you've led. Imagine living
with
you!
Try as you might you have no clue.
>
> 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.
Feel free to utter more garbage responses. You have indicated many
times that your strategy works on negative games. Reid's proof shows
that is impossible as a general strategy. Come on, tell me again that
the earth is flat.
>
> 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.
Well, if that isn't support your definition is a little different
than mine. Of course, this is just another obfuscation on your part.
I already know these guys don't exist.
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?
I could care less if you "comply" with me. You're the one with the
fradulent system until you show otherwise. If you don't show proof
then you are admitting you lied all along.
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.
Why should I go along with your attempts at changing the subject.
Besides you backed out of my challenge as well.
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).
You don't see too clearly do you. Must be too many tequilas.
>
> 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.
Another ridiculous attempt to change the subject. Your fraudulent
system is the topic so either show proof or shut up.
>
> 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?
Never seen any common sense in your replies, only attempts to avoid
admitting the truth. Either show proof or shut up.
>
> 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!
And you'll keep hearing it until to come up with a proof or go away
for good.
> 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.
The point, oh great idiot, is that it ISN'T flat. By the way, it
isn't round either.
It's either A or B, and it is defined by
science.
No, it's not defined by science. Science just explains nature.
Video poker is played by humans, and according to you, their
brains cannot come close to what's inside a computer.
I've never said that.
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.
I didn't come up with any math. That happened hundreds of years ago.
All I'm doing is pointing out your system is invalid. I could care
less how you play. I'm just pointing out your system can't change a
negative game into a positive expectation. Reid's paper proves it and
you have nothing to counter.
>
> 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?
Not me, oh great idiot, it's your system. And, you have to disprove
Reid's paper if you want anyone to believe you.
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).
You think your 3rd grade behavior bothers me? Get real. Like I said
before just send me their names and addresses. It's not my system
that's in question. If you refuse it's pretty evident that you were
lying all along. So, either put up or go away with your tail between
your legs.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: