vpFREE2 Forums

Refreshing information

Okay, you have made your point. On the other hand, you must admit the
author you write about is merciful with the reader, he does say near
the start of the article, and I quote,

"There are people who believe that considering penalty cards is more
trouble than its worth. If that's your philosophy, you probably want
to skip the column this week and next."

If you don't want to suffer, you can wait two weeks before reading
this author. He might write something you find to be fun in two
weeks, everything is possible.

For those of you with the stomach to, go on over to
www.casinogaming.com and take a look at the Bob Dancer column for
this week. Something about a deuces wild game, penalty cards, and
12.5c more for doing this than that. All sorts of nonsense. Tons of
screwy, meaningless blocks of information laced with numerous what-

if

hands - and then some. Now do you see why he was fired at GT?

But I may be barking up the wrong tree here. Since you (Dick) live

by

the slide rule, then this type of article is something you'd

probably

read every time you sit on the pot for at least an hour. Oh what

fun!

Now the truth. Regardless of the classroom value ANY of that crap

may

have, it has no practicle applicability for ANYBODY while playing

at

the machines. Imagine thinking about that gobblydegook while

betting

your money? It's Soooo hilarious.

It's not too difficult to see that all these numerical type

articles

(and blabby-dabby-do ones from the Queen) do is strengthen my hold

on

···

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

being the most popular writer of any casino game in the country.

Once more you constantly babble with no content. No proof your system
is viable for the general public, no names and addresses of your
ficticious mathematitions, just more unproven assertions. How many
posts is this that I've asked you to disprove Reid's paper. You have
provided nothing yet.

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

wrote:

> Talk about hearsay. I ask for conclusive evidence. I think you

need

a little marketing 101. Of course they target the "average" player.
> That's the largest demographic. To do anything else would not

make

> marketing sense Mr. MBA.

Here's a flash for you who have no idea how the business world
operates. Promotions target the largest overall profit-generating
centers, and NOT general quantity. That's Marketing 001. High

school

stuff. Where were you....or did they not bother with geeks. This is
not one of your laws of large numbers that you can just plant into
the real world.

If you think the advantage players, probably less than 1% of all
gamblers, is a big target compared to 99%+ of the general public, you
are beyond hope.

>
> And how is that different? How does a bet on Sunday provide and
> advantage over a bet on Saturday?

You're soooo dense. Because players who progress and even those who
don't (except you) AND who have the proper bankroll get ahead a

very

high percentage of sessions, pre-set win/loss stop-play goals mean
Sat.'s win is over with, because it's a whole new game Sun., and
goals usually are met.

This means absolutely nothing. Where does this provide an advantage?
What's the difference from me reaching my goal; cashing out; getting
up and turning around; and sitting down once again to start the NEXT
session on Sat. vs. waiting until Sun. for the NEXT session? The
correct answer is NOTHING. Anything else you say is pure BS.

You don't see that because you've never taken
the time to see that....always playing on and on and on like a
zombie.

No, I can't see it because it's pure and simple nonsense.

I asked you explain HOW it was different. You ramble on and say
nothing concrete. Let me keep it simple for you. If I flip a coin 500
times on Sat. what is the difference if the next flip is still on
Sat. or on Sun. Do the odds change?

>
> Actually, I don't think they believe that at all. They believe

it's

a series of independent events. You mean you don't understand this
and yet you continually state that advantage play doesn't work?

Why don't you finish your statement.... "that in the long-run

equate

to one long-term play session".

Well that IS true, but it's only true because each hand is an
independent event. In some ways it's kind of like a checkbook. You
make additions and subtractions, however, each transaction is
independent. Your balance is the overall result.

>
> Please provide conclusive evidence ANYONE can win more often than
an advantage player at the same denomination?

Please provide conclusive evidence that an advantage player wins

more

often or just plain more than I do!

You're the one pushing the flat earth progressive system. Reid has
shown conclusively that it doesn't work. If you state otherwise then
you need to show proof, or show where his proof is incorrect.
Otherwise you're a liar and a fraud.

> Wrong again. Each session in progression can be viewed as a

single

> event after all the results are totaled. Just like 500 coin flips
can be viewed as one event for statisical purposes. I don't care if
you believe it or not. It's a mathematical fact. Remember all

thoses

> fortune 500 companies. Same math.

There you go again. Greasing up that slide rule and rambling on as

if

playing video poker were the same as taking a math exam.

Nothing like a math exam. However, math DESCRIBES the interactions of
VP perfectly. And, you have shown NOTHING to counter this FACT.

The only
single event in vp is each hand. Period.

Once you accept this then the ONLY possible conclusion is that a
progressive system CANNOT turn a negative game into a positive
expectation. Any other statement is contrary to the basics of math,
you know ASDM (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division).

I actually am out there talking to and training a lot
of people all the time.

And that's really a scary scenario. Why does "the blind leading the
blind" pop into my head.

You're nothing more than an armchair pilot
who has opinions BASED on virtually nothing.

Other than proven scientific FACT.

>
> Now you've moved from calling me "obsessed, playing every day"
> to "you can't play much". The fact is that neither one is true.

The pattern here is that you're obsessed with the game, which leads
me to believe you play far too much for your own good when you hit
the casinos. Yes, it's a human feeling based on common sense, and I
do believe I'm right 100%. (I know if I had said 110% you'd come

out

and focus on the fact that mathematically there's nothing more than
100%.)

And once again you are 100% wrong. My average session time when
playing in LV is around 2 hours. How much did you play in Reno?

> Sure you are. Like your mythical mathematicians that analyzed

your

> system. What a crock! In addition, anyone who wasn't worried

about

> their reputation would not CONTINUALLY need to tell everyone how
> great they THINK they are.

That's because you're on the wannabee side of the tracks.

Don't you wish. I could care less about you. Your continual attempts
to push your fraudulent system (in order to boost your ego which is
clearly your single biggest attribute) is what draws my attention.

>
> > And you have shown nothing in Reid's statements that disprove
what I say.

I repeat the statement. And if I'm a guru

No, you're not a guru (other than in your own mind).

then it's because of people
who write nonsense like you do.

You look like such a fool when you call proven facts nonsense. Back
to your old flat earth position again. I can see you standing on a
platform saying "Gee, the earth sure looks flat to me, all that math
is just nonsense".

···

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

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

But I may be barking up the wrong tree here. Since you (Dick) live

by

the slide rule, then this type of article is something you'd

probably

read every time you sit on the pot for at least an hour. Oh what

fun!

Actually, I 'm not very big on this kind of detail. I would never
recommend it to the general reader and I don't think Bob does either.
However, it is always good to know such detail is available if
interested.

Now the truth.

Yeah, right. Just like your made-up mathematicians.

Regardless of the classroom value ANY of that crap may
have, it has no practicle applicability for ANYBODY while playing

at

the machines. Imagine thinking about that gobblydegook while

betting

your money? It's Soooo hilarious.

In many respects VP can get very boring. For many, this level of
detail ADDS to the experience. But then, you think everyone is as
stupid as you are.

It's not too difficult to see that all these numerical type

articles

(and blabby-dabby-do ones from the Queen) do is strengthen my hold

on

being the most popular writer of any casino game in the country.

More self-promoting words from the man who complains when anyone else
promotes their wares. Add hypocrite to your list of attributes.

Once more you constantly babble with no content. No proof your

system is viable for the general public,

Genius, haven't you seen me write this a thousand times, that I am
not concerned with nor do I care about whether anyone else finds it
viable. It was developed only for someone with my particular
abilities, discipline, determination, bankroll, and circumstances.
YOU are the only neurotic who seems to want it to be some other way,
and you are extremely frustrated that it is not.

no names and addresses of your ficticious mathematitions,

And as I've said here, why would I give names of others to you or
anyone else without their authorization - as well as proof that you
are not just some Internet hack. You first must prove with verifiable
credentials that i can go to them with.

How many posts is this that I've asked you to disprove Reid's paper.
You have provided nothing yet.

And how many times is it that I've asked you to show where Reid, you,
or anyone else proves my exact strategy does not work? You are
challenging someone, Einstein. It is you who must first prove your
value.

> Here's a flash for you who have no idea how the business world
> operates. Promotions target the largest overall profit-generating
> centers, and NOT general quantity. That's Marketing 001.

If you think the advantage players, probably less than 1% of all
gamblers, is a big target compared to 99%+ of the general public,

you are beyond hope.

That's why I get the facts before I print anything.

This means absolutely nothing. Where does this provide an advantage?

Save your money, and try it. You can get a serious migraine reading
all those books all the time and playing make-believe with yourself.
  

Well that IS true, but it's only true because each hand is an
independent event. In some ways it's kind of like a checkbook. You
make additions and subtractions, however, each transaction is
independent. Your balance is the overall result.

Yes, but ask someone who does that daily if they are in fact not more
concerned with comfort each and every day rather than some
theoretical nonsense that says they'll someday finish a tiny
percentage ahead.

Nothing like a math exam. However, math DESCRIBES the interactions

of VP perfectly. And, you have shown NOTHING to counter this FACT.

Math describes what theoretically MAY occur in vp assuming absolute
perfection from point A to point B. That's why it cannot be used
successfully by any human being.

And that's really a scary scenario. Why does "the blind leading the
blind" pop into my head.

Because you can't see why it's important to help others who also see
that your system...the one which your heroes sell to everyone....is
nothing but a bundle of unattainable BS---sold to the public by the
few gurus to keep gambling money in their pockets since they
obviously do not win with it, and used by you and your type as a feel-
good position in order to justify gambling when you have no practical
reason to.

And once again you are 100% wrong. My average session time when
playing in LV is around 2 hours. How much did you play in Reno?

So you travel to LV from Minn. to play only 2 hours? So then how is
it that you intend to attain your sacred 'long-term'?

> That's because you're on the wannabee side of the tracks.

Don't you wish. I could care less about you.

I kinda think you're fooling yourself with that statement, Dick.

You look like such a fool when you call proven facts nonsense. Back
to your old flat earth position again. I can see you standing on a
platform saying "Gee, the earth sure looks flat to me, all that

math is just nonsense".

Same old boring stuff from you. Get the Geritol out, because you're
starting to falter again.....

···

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

Actually, I 'm not very big on this kind of detail. I would never
recommend it to the general reader and I don't think Bob does

either. However, it is always good to know such detail is available
if interested.

Bob doesn't care about, or recommend anything to anyone out of the
kindness of his heart to help anyone. He's the epitome of a system
that operates on the principle that if you wiggle some make-believe
money-making theory in front of many gambler's faces, they'll reach
in and dig down deep for the privilege of getting excited about it.
He doesn't do a thing unless he gets paid for it, and why he does
that is clearly obvious.

In many respects VP can get very boring. For many, this level of
detail ADDS to the experience. But then, you think everyone is as
stupid as you are.

It only adds to the experience until the student learns to think for
himself. I don't find it boring in the least. Of course you would,
because you associate playing with taking an exam.

More self-promoting words from the man who complains when anyone

else promotes their wares. Add hypocrite to your list of attributes.

"Anyone else" promotes their wares to take other people's money
without shame. I charge no one for any info or training and I never
will, because I (and permit me to use one of your 2 favorite words
here) actually earn my living as the others would have people believe
they do but do not.

···

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

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

wrote:

> Once more you constantly babble with no content. No proof your
system is viable for the general public,

Genius, haven't you seen me write this a thousand times, that I am
not concerned with nor do I care about whether anyone else finds it
viable. It was developed only for someone with my particular
abilities, discipline, determination, bankroll, and circumstances.
YOU are the only neurotic who seems to want it to be some other

way,

and you are extremely frustrated that it is not.

If that were REALLY the case then why would you continue to post to
this forum? Just another lie in your long history of lies.

no names and addresses of your ficticious mathematitions,

And as I've said here, why would I give names of others to you or
anyone else without their authorization - as well as proof that you
are not just some Internet hack. You first must prove with

verifiable

credentials that i can go to them with.

Because it would provide some evidence to support your postion. You
can waffle all you want but it's completely obvious these guys are
just one more lie.

How many posts is this that I've asked you to disprove Reid's

paper.

You have provided nothing yet.

And how many times is it that I've asked you to show where Reid,

you,

or anyone else proves my exact strategy does not work? You are
challenging someone, Einstein. It is you who must first prove your
value.

Reid's paper ALREADY shows your system can not turn a negative game
into a positive expectation with a progression. You are the one
promoting a fraudulent system. So, either shut up and go away or show
show some proof.

>
> And once again you are 100% wrong. My average session time when
> playing in LV is around 2 hours. How much did you play in Reno?

So you travel to LV from Minn. to play only 2 hours? So then how is
it that you intend to attain your sacred 'long-term'?

I see you evaded this question. How much did you play in Reno Mr
Always tells the Truth.

> You look like such a fool when you call proven facts nonsense.

Back

> to your old flat earth position again. I can see you standing on

a

> platform saying "Gee, the earth sure looks flat to me, all that
math is just nonsense".

Same old boring stuff from you. Get the Geritol out, because you're
starting to falter again.....

And, once more you show me your true character. The truth gets to
you, doesn't it.

···

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

If that were REALLY the case then why would you continue to post to
this forum? Just another lie in your long history of lies.

I continue to post to expose the fradulent activities associated with
those who encourage, sell, and support long-term/optimal play
strategy to the general public. You really ought to read my first
book again.

Because it would provide some evidence to support your postion. You
can waffle all you want but it's completely obvious these guys are
just one more lie.

And just why would I spend my time doing what you ask when I clearly
have no idea that you would undersatand any of it? Present your
verifiable credentials and I will do it....upon review & if they
consent. The 2 that are alive may ask for payment, and I will take
care of that too. You seem to get some sort of phony strength by
making believe these people do not exist, and I believe that's why
you won't close this loop. It's the same as the strategy you claim to
support as well as what you say about my strategy: You don't want any
of it to realize finality, otherwise you just wouldn't have any other
way to spend your declining years.

Reid's paper ALREADY shows your system can not turn a negative game
into a positive expectation with a progression. You are the one
promoting a fraudulent system. So, either shut up and go away or

show show some proof.

More generalities. If when I worked for one of the country's major
Defense Contractors, and one of my engineers answered questions the
way you do, you'd have been in the unemployment lines along with
thousands of low-life video poker players long ago.

I see you evaded this question. How much did you play in Reno Mr
Always tells the Truth.

It wasn't an evade, I missed it. Is this really worth making THAT big
a deal over....the amount of time I played within my profession on a
Northern Nevada trip--esp. after you submitted such a nonsensical
report of how long you play on LV trips? Well, besides being able to
read all about the details of my trip in a few weeks on my site after
it's printed in GT next week I believe, I played about 6 hours the
first night (winning $1300), and then 1-1/2 the 2nd (losing $900). So
in your terms, where you HAVE to equate every action to how it looks
in mathematics, 7-1/2 hours yielded a profit of $400 (or about
$53.33/hour)--and I did not have a real successful trip! The room,
food, and flight were all N/C, and the Hemi-Magnum that I rented was
$101. I paid $11 for gasoline, and I spent $19 on misc. items. Now
after running all that thru your computer, how's that compare to
sitting around bored to death in Minnesota?

And, once more you show me your true character. The truth gets to
you, doesn't it.

I and the truth are the same. What I'm interested in are stories from
you about Geritol.

···

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

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

wrote:

> If that were REALLY the case then why would you continue to post

to

> this forum? Just another lie in your long history of lies.

I continue to post to expose the fradulent activities associated

with

those who encourage, sell, and support long-term/optimal play
strategy to the general public. You really ought to read my first
book again.

Well, if you have something to expose, please show evidence. Of
course, you can't since long-term/optimal play is a proven system.
So, why don't you just shut up and get lost.

>
> Because it would provide some evidence to support your postion.

You

> can waffle all you want but it's completely obvious these guys

are

> just one more lie.

And just why would I spend my time doing what you ask when I

clearly

have no idea that you would undersatand any of it? Present your
verifiable credentials and I will do it....upon review & if they
consent. The 2 that are alive may ask for payment, and I will take
care of that too. You seem to get some sort of phony strength by
making believe these people do not exist, and I believe that's why
you won't close this loop.

Yada, yada, yada. You don't care about my credentials because they
have nothing to do with the discussion. You're just evading the issue
because these mythical math guys don't exist. And, until you prove
otherwise it's solid evidence that you were lying and still are.

It's the same as the strategy you claim to
support as well as what you say about my strategy: You don't want

any

of it to realize finality, otherwise you just wouldn't have any

other

way to spend your declining years.

Rambling on.

>
> Reid's paper ALREADY shows your system can not turn a negative

game

> into a positive expectation with a progression. You are the one
> promoting a fraudulent system. So, either shut up and go away or
show show some proof.

More generalities.

No, a specific mathematical proof.

If when I worked for one of the country's major
Defense Contractors, and one of my engineers answered questions the
way you do, you'd have been in the unemployment lines along with
thousands of low-life video poker players long ago.

Is that before or after they fired you.

>
> I see you evaded this question. How much did you play in Reno Mr
> Always tells the Truth.

It wasn't an evade, I missed it. Is this really worth making THAT

big

a deal over....the amount of time I played within my profession on

a

Northern Nevada trip--esp. after you submitted such a nonsensical
report of how long you play on LV trips? Well, besides being able

to

read all about the details of my trip in a few weeks on my site

after

it's printed in GT next week I believe, I played about 6 hours the
first night (winning $1300), and then 1-1/2 the 2nd (losing $900).

So

in your terms, where you HAVE to equate every action to how it

looks

in mathematics, 7-1/2 hours yielded a profit of $400 (or about
$53.33/hour)--and I did not have a real successful trip! The room,
food, and flight were all N/C, and the Hemi-Magnum that I rented

was

$101. I paid $11 for gasoline, and I spent $19 on misc. items. Now
after running all that thru your computer, how's that compare to
sitting around bored to death in Minnesota?

I was just checking since you love to call anybody who spends more
than a couple of hours in a casino an addict.
  

>
> And, once more you show me your true character. The truth gets to
> you, doesn't it.

I and the truth are the same. What I'm interested in are stories

from

you about Geritol.

Were you in prison for 30 years. You love to use anachronisms (like
slide-rules and geritol). You're obviously not as young as you'd like
everyone to think.

···

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

Well, if you have something to expose, please show evidence. Of
course, you can't since long-term/optimal play is a proven system.
So, why don't you just shut up and get lost.

Aside from all the very intelligent people who've lost money playing
your famous long-term strategy (let's use one of your heroes here as
an example: Yuri, friend of the Queen and famous former UNLV math
professor extraordinaire whose most recent gig was begging for money
on the streets of LV), all you need do is use simple common sense.
How difficult is it for your one-track mind to figure out those who
sell all that malarky to players do so because they need the money
for gambling? If they didn't and were so successful with it as they
portray in order to facilitate the scam, then they'd simply play and
win....like I do. Get it yet?

  
Yada, yada, yada. You don't care about my credentials because they
have nothing to do with the discussion. You're just evading the

issue because these mythical math guys don't exist. And, until you
prove otherwise it's solid evidence that you were lying and still are.

I sure do care about your so-called credentials. If you're so bent on
this then hand the info over so I can verify. I believe you're just
another math wannabee whose a phony that gambles recklessly. Prove me
wrong. Go ahead, close the loop for a change instead of ducking the
issue.

> It's the same as the strategy you claim to
> support as well as what you say about my strategy: You don't want
any
> of it to realize finality, otherwise you just wouldn't have any
other
> way to spend your declining years.

Rambling on.

OK. You lead a sour life at this point in time--something you didn't
count on.

I was just checking since you love to call anybody who spends more
than a couple of hours in a casino an addict.

I'm more interested in why you only play "2 hrs." when you go to LV.
You mean you didn't figure that out, Mr. Retiree, with all that spare
time up there with nothing interesting or of value to do?

  
Were you in prison for 30 years. You love to use anachronisms (like
slide-rules and geritol). You're obviously not as young as you'd

like everyone to think.

??? I remember the Geritol commercials that showed old farts gasping
for it when they got bored. Sound familiar? And my father carried one
of those stupid slide rules around with him. BTW--until he died he
and I argued about this as we do here. He was a math geek as well.
But the difference is he saw me win all the time with my strategy
while he never could with his idol Dan Paymar's strategy. He lived
long enough to admit his error in judgement. I'm sure you will too.

···

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

deadin7,

I must say I agree with you in a lot of what you say, and I'm glad I
have an opportunity here to express it.

In other message boards someone asked if it was better to play one or
five coins on VP machines. In the universe of Atlantic City and the
Las Vegas Strip, all the machines have a return less than 100%. So if
one uses the long term mathematics they use, then the correct answer
will be to tell this person to play one coin. Since he is expected to
lose money long term, then he should lose as little as possible.

Some of the so-called "advantage players" will resort to all sorts of
funny arguments. They will say that 'since the Royal has a premium'
they should play full coin. They will then say that if they wanted to
play one coin, they should go to a lower denomination and play full
coin. Hogwash! If they really take seriously the long term strict
mathematics they demand on yourself, then they should advise anyone
that in the lower denomination one should play also one coin.
Some 'advantage players' do not seem to be consistent with their
mathematically based statements. A game that pays back less than
100%, according to their view of the matter, will make you lose long
term, thus you should play the minimum number of coins possible. But
they see the fun of the Royal and throw the mathematics out the
window and advice full-coin play.

I'm just telling this because I see people demand of you perfect
consistency; yet when so-called self-touted 'advantage players' take
liberties on their mathematics, and treat it slovenly, no one jumps
on them.

I don't know what is best to do when putting one's money on machines,
but let me tell you, I think your advice is more fun, more promising
and really not less mathematically justified that the advice one
hears from some of those 'orthodox' self-touted 'advangage' players,
they do not sound logical to me.

E

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

wrote:

> Well, if you have something to expose, please show evidence. Of
> course, you can't since long-term/optimal play is a proven

system.

> So, why don't you just shut up and get lost.

Aside from all the very intelligent people who've lost money

playing

your famous long-term strategy (let's use one of your heroes here

as

an example: Yuri, friend of the Queen and famous former UNLV math
professor extraordinaire whose most recent gig was begging for

money

on the streets of LV), all you need do is use simple common sense.
How difficult is it for your one-track mind to figure out those who
sell all that malarky to players do so because they need the money
for gambling? If they didn't and were so successful with it as they
portray in order to facilitate the scam, then they'd simply play

and

win....like I do. Get it yet?
>
> Yada, yada, yada. You don't care about my credentials because

they

> have nothing to do with the discussion. You're just evading the
issue because these mythical math guys don't exist. And, until you
prove otherwise it's solid evidence that you were lying and still

are.

I sure do care about your so-called credentials. If you're so bent

on

this then hand the info over so I can verify. I believe you're just
another math wannabee whose a phony that gambles recklessly. Prove

me

wrong. Go ahead, close the loop for a change instead of ducking the
issue.
>
> > It's the same as the strategy you claim to
> > support as well as what you say about my strategy: You don't

want

> any
> > of it to realize finality, otherwise you just wouldn't have any
> other
> > way to spend your declining years.
>
> Rambling on.

OK. You lead a sour life at this point in time--something you

didn't

count on.
>
> I was just checking since you love to call anybody who spends

more

> than a couple of hours in a casino an addict.

I'm more interested in why you only play "2 hrs." when you go to

LV.

You mean you didn't figure that out, Mr. Retiree, with all that

spare

time up there with nothing interesting or of value to do?
>
> Were you in prison for 30 years. You love to use anachronisms

(like

> slide-rules and geritol). You're obviously not as young as you'd
like everyone to think.

??? I remember the Geritol commercials that showed old farts

gasping

for it when they got bored. Sound familiar? And my father carried

one

···

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

of those stupid slide rules around with him. BTW--until he died he
and I argued about this as we do here. He was a math geek as well.
But the difference is he saw me win all the time with my strategy
while he never could with his idol Dan Paymar's strategy. He lived
long enough to admit his error in judgement. I'm sure you will too.

In fairness to former guru#1 Bob Dancer, he did write an article that
encouraged people who play <100% games to play only one coin if they
were going to play. But as with everything he writes, he only did so
for his own image as seen through the eyes of those like Dick here,
who not only absolutely worship anyone who talks in the ones & zeros
language--they are ready to pick apart and pounce on ANY strategic
error in methodology which deviates in the slightest from the geek
theories. We already see how he has issues with Paymar, Hughes, Wong,
and he despises the Queen. With the men, he likes to be top dog
because of his position on using penalty cards. He compares to in the
muscle car era, when one manufacturer advertised their newest "454
cubic inch engine" and their rival would come out with a 455 in a
month, and then another followed with a 460. As if any of that made a
difference in the real world. On paper, yes, and that's exactly the
type of nonsense Dick argues with me about here. Bob's issue with the
blabby Queen is with her sloppy knowledge reporting in her articles,
and how she toots her horn around town without regard to what he
considers sacred.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
> I must say I agree with you in a lot of what you say, and I'm glad
I have an opportunity here to express it. In other message boards
someone asked if it was better to play one or five coins on VP
machines. In the universe of Atlantic City and the Las Vegas Strip,
all the machines have a return less than 100%. So if one uses the
long term mathematics they use, then the correct answer will be to
tell this person to play one coin. Since he is expected to lose money
long term, then he should lose as little as possible. Some of the so-
called "advantage players" will resort to all sorts of funny
arguments. They will say that 'since the Royal has a premium'

they should play full coin. They will then say that if they wanted

to play one coin, they should go to a lower denomination and play
full coin. Hogwash! If they really take seriously the long term
strict mathematics they demand on yourself, then they should advise
anyone that in the lower denomination one should play also one coin.

Some 'advantage players' do not seem to be consistent with their
mathematically based statements. A game that pays back less than
100%, according to their view of the matter, will make you lose

long term, thus you should play the minimum number of coins possible.
But they see the fun of the Royal and throw the mathematics out the

window and advise full-coin play.

I'm just telling this because I see people demand of you perfect
consistency; yet when so-called self-touted 'advantage players'

take liberties on their mathematics, and treat it slovenly, no one
jumps on them.

I don't know what is best to do when putting one's money on

machines, but let me tell you, I think your advice is more fun, more
promising and really not less mathematically justified that the
advice one hears from some of those 'orthodox' self
touted 'advangage' players, they do not sound logical to me.

···

E

I did not know about that article of BD advising people to play one
coin on less than 100% VP, thanks for bringing that up. I'll try to
find it. Not that I follow blindly every word of the guru, not in the
least, but I must say in this matter he is at least consistent; much
more consistent than some of his followers.

In fairness to former guru#1 Bob Dancer, he did write an article

that

encouraged people who play <100% games to play only one coin if

they

were going to play. But as with everything he writes, he only did

so

for his own image as seen through the eyes of those like Dick here,
who not only absolutely worship anyone who talks in the ones &

zeros

language--they are ready to pick apart and pounce on ANY strategic
error in methodology which deviates in the slightest from the geek
theories. We already see how he has issues with Paymar, Hughes,

Wong,

and he despises the Queen. With the men, he likes to be top dog
because of his position on using penalty cards. He compares to in

the

muscle car era, when one manufacturer advertised their newest "454
cubic inch engine" and their rival would come out with a 455 in a
month, and then another followed with a 460. As if any of that made

a

difference in the real world. On paper, yes, and that's exactly the
type of nonsense Dick argues with me about here. Bob's issue with

the

blabby Queen is with her sloppy knowledge reporting in her

articles,

and how she toots her horn around town without regard to what he
considers sacred.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
> I must say I agree with you in a lot of what you say, and I'm

glad

I have an opportunity here to express it. In other message boards
someone asked if it was better to play one or five coins on VP
machines. In the universe of Atlantic City and the Las Vegas Strip,
all the machines have a return less than 100%. So if one uses the
long term mathematics they use, then the correct answer will be to
tell this person to play one coin. Since he is expected to lose

money

long term, then he should lose as little as possible. Some of the

so-

called "advantage players" will resort to all sorts of funny
arguments. They will say that 'since the Royal has a premium'
> they should play full coin. They will then say that if they

wanted

to play one coin, they should go to a lower denomination and play
full coin. Hogwash! If they really take seriously the long term
strict mathematics they demand on yourself, then they should advise
anyone that in the lower denomination one should play also one

coin.

> Some 'advantage players' do not seem to be consistent with their
> mathematically based statements. A game that pays back less than
> 100%, according to their view of the matter, will make you lose
long term, thus you should play the minimum number of coins

possible.

But they see the fun of the Royal and throw the mathematics out the
> window and advise full-coin play.
>
> I'm just telling this because I see people demand of you perfect
> consistency; yet when so-called self-touted 'advantage players'
take liberties on their mathematics, and treat it slovenly, no one
jumps on them.
>
> I don't know what is best to do when putting one's money on
machines, but let me tell you, I think your advice is more fun,

more

···

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

promising and really not less mathematically justified that the
advice one hears from some of those 'orthodox' self
touted 'advangage' players, they do not sound logical to me.
>
> E

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

In other message boards someone asked if it was better to play one

or

five coins on VP machines. In the universe of Atlantic City and the
Las Vegas Strip, all the machines have a return less than 100%. So

if

one uses the long term mathematics they use, then the correct

answer

will be to tell this person to play one coin. Since he is expected

to

lose money long term, then he should lose as little as possible.

Some of the so-called "advantage players" will resort to all sorts

of

funny arguments. They will say that 'since the Royal has a premium'
they should play full coin. They will then say that if they wanted

to

play one coin, they should go to a lower denomination and play full
coin. Hogwash! If they really take seriously the long term strict
mathematics they demand on yourself, then they should advise anyone
that in the lower denomination one should play also one coin.

I doubt this very much. Please give supporting evidence. There are
some arguments for playing full coin, but not many if the payback is
significantly less than 100%. If the CB + BB + comps is enough to
make the game positive, then full coin would be appropriate. Most
folks will tell you not to play if the game is too bad.

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

wrote:

> Well, if you have something to expose, please show evidence. Of
> course, you can't since long-term/optimal play is a proven

system.

> So, why don't you just shut up and get lost.

Aside from all the very intelligent people who've lost money

playing

your famous long-term strategy (let's use one of your heroes here

as

an example: Yuri, friend of the Queen and famous former UNLV math
professor extraordinaire whose most recent gig was begging for

money

on the streets of LV),

Can't be much of a hero of anyone since I've never heard of him. Like
I said before, examples prove nothing, and there will be some losers
of ANY system as predicted by the statisical models. Advantage play
is still the BEST option available.

By the way, a progressive system using advantage play as a basis can
also be successful, just dangerous to the bankroll. However, it can't
turn a negative game positive in and of itself.

all you need do is use simple common sense.

Like the earth is flat? You keep using this term yet showing you have
a complete lack of common sense yourself.

How difficult is it for your one-track mind to figure out those who
sell all that malarky to players do so because they need the money
for gambling? If they didn't and were so successful with it as they
portray in order to facilitate the scam, then they'd simply play

and

win....like I do. Get it yet?

It's called capitalism, do you get it?

>
> Yada, yada, yada. You don't care about my credentials because

they

> have nothing to do with the discussion. You're just evading the
issue because these mythical math guys don't exist. And, until you
prove otherwise it's solid evidence that you were lying and still

are.

I sure do care about your so-called credentials. If you're so bent

on

this then hand the info over so I can verify. I believe you're just
another math wannabee whose a phony that gambles recklessly. Prove

me

wrong. Go ahead, close the loop for a change instead of ducking the
issue.

Wrong again. You are the one ducking the issue if you do not provide
the names and addresses. You brought them up as supporting evidence
of your flat earth system, not me. So, either come forth with names
or admit they don't exist.

> I was just checking since you love to call anybody who spends

more

> than a couple of hours in a casino an addict.

I'm more interested in why you only play "2 hrs." when you go to

LV.

You mean you didn't figure that out, Mr. Retiree, with all that

spare

time up there with nothing interesting or of value to do?

Look who's talking Mr. Addict. Don't like it much when someone uses
your own fallacious arguments against you, do you?

>
> Were you in prison for 30 years. You love to use anachronisms

(like

> slide-rules and geritol). You're obviously not as young as you'd
like everyone to think.

??? I remember the Geritol commercials that showed old farts

gasping

for it when they got bored. Sound familiar? And my father carried

one

of those stupid slide rules around with him. BTW--until he died he
and I argued about this as we do here. He was a math geek as well.
But the difference is he saw me win all the time with my strategy
while he never could with his idol Dan Paymar's strategy. He lived
long enough to admit his error in judgement. I'm sure you will too.

Sounds like another made up story to me. I'm waiting for the one
where Tinkerbell has converted to the flat earth system because of
disagreements with Peter.

···

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

More hypocracy. First you always come out and ask for
your 'supporting evidence', yet you refuse -- or cannot -- supply ANY
yourself. And you wonder why you're positions are so weak....

Now our math hero makes a statement like "Most folks will tell you
not to play if the game is too bad". And you wonder why I ask for
your credentials? Who are 'most folks'? Aren't you the same bozo who
said these type players (so-called 'advantage' players) comprise less
than 1% of the total? Then you continue on with the dubious 'if the
game is too bad'. So what does THAT mean? How about some of that
famous mathematical clarity you're always demanding from others? Or
is it too early for all this at once up in Minnesota??

I doubt this very much. Please give supporting evidence. There are
some arguments for playing full coin, but not many if the payback

is significantly less than 100%. If the CB + BB + comps is enough to

···

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

make the game positive, then full coin would be appropriate. Most
folks will tell you not to play if the game is too bad.

Can't be much of a hero of anyone since I've never heard of him.

Like I said before, examples prove nothing, and there will be some
losers of ANY system as predicted by the statisical models. Advantage
play is still the BEST option available.

Your guru heroes made it sound like this was a math god who NEVER
LOST PLAYING LONG-TERM STRATEGY VP walking the earth--of course, that
was BEFORE he lost every dime to the game and turned into a street
beggar. Then they dropped him like a hot potato, and whenever I bring
him up they just run and hide--sort of like what you just did. Quite
a fitting testimony, wouldn't you say? You say real-life examples
prove nothing, yet you site how statistical models do. That's a
mutant approach if I've ever seen one. It's also why I don't pity the
fools who chase after winning money gambling by putting their trust
into some bogus theory rather than by following actual examples as
experienced by humans. Advantage play is an option, that's for sure,
and it's certainly the BEST option available for players who love
points more than money and who haven't the ability to think. It also
helps me out by having these neurotic promotion-chasers keep the
machines full for when I get there.

By the way, a progressive system using advantage play as a basis

can also be successful, just dangerous to the bankroll. However, it
can't turn a negative game positive in and of itself.

Yeah right. That's been said years ago to me by the throng. "If you
only played 10/7 BP then we'd believe you". That's as closed-minded a
statement as I've heard in vp. If the game is 100.1% I'll be
believed, but if it's 99.9% I'm a liar. What a joke! And you people
want respect from whom?

It's called capitalism, do you get it?

That's weak. These idiots are capatilists? They're addicts in need of
cash from ANY source available, and they'll take it from anyone
stupid enough to give it to them. At best, these leeches are
marketing experts.

Wrong again. You are the one ducking the issue if you do not

provide the names and addresses. You brought them up as supporting
evidence of your flat earth system, not me. So, either come forth
with names or admit they don't exist.

You're still ducking. Dicky the Duck. You challenged me, so I require
proof of your integrity before asking them if they'll comply. And I
think I'm getting that answer here.

Look who's talking Mr. Addict. Don't like it much when someone uses
your own fallacious arguments against you, do you?

No, I don't mind at all. Go back and re-read 4 of my past GT articles
where I have no problem admitting I was a vp addict 1990-1996. Now
it's my job, and I play when I want money. You on the other hand are
nothing but an armchair enthusiast who sometimes says you are a true
advantage player, then comes out and looks dumb by saying you only
put in 2 hours of play on trips to Nevada. What you're really saying
is you have some sort of problem that you can't 'put into words'.

···

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

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

wrote:

>
> By the way, a progressive system using advantage play as a basis
can also be successful, just dangerous to the bankroll. However, it
can't turn a negative game positive in and of itself.

Yeah right. That's been said years ago to me by the throng. "If you
only played 10/7 BP then we'd believe you". That's as closed-minded

a

statement as I've heard in vp. If the game is 100.1% I'll be
believed, but if it's 99.9% I'm a liar. What a joke! And you people
want respect from whom?

Yes, you are a joke. If you really had that MBA you claim then you'd
understand simple statistics (VERY SIMPLE). There's no guarantees,
any individual can win on negative games or lose on positive games.
There's plenty of examples of both. However, you are MORE likely to
win over time playing the HIGHER payback machines (including CB, BB,
comps). That's all there is. Nothing you say can change these FACTs.
If you don't understand this then you are either lying about your MBA
or lying in this thread to promote your Flat Earth system (or both).

>
> It's called capitalism, do you get it?

That's weak. These idiots are capatilists? They're addicts in need

of

cash from ANY source available, and they'll take it from anyone
stupid enough to give it to them.

Funny, that's exactly my opinion of you. However, at least advantage
play folks are telling the truth, unlike you.

>
> Wrong again. You are the one ducking the issue if you do not
provide the names and addresses. You brought them up as supporting
evidence of your flat earth system, not me. So, either come forth
with names or admit they don't exist.

You're still ducking. Dicky the Duck. You challenged me, so I

require

proof of your integrity before asking them if they'll comply. And I
think I'm getting that answer here.

I am STILL not promoting a system and therefore have nothing to
prove. You on the other hand keep hiding your head in that rectal
orifice of yours and trying any and everything to avoid looking like
the liar you are. Feel free to challenge me another 1000 times
because it means nothing. You are considered a liar until you show
factual proof of the existence of promised mathematicians.

You on the other hand are
nothing but an armchair enthusiast who sometimes says you are a

true

advantage player, then comes out and looks dumb by saying you only
put in 2 hours of play on trips to Nevada.

Never said that. You're such an idiot. You should really take a
reading comprehension course.

What you're really saying
is you have some sort of problem that you can't 'put into words'.

What you really mean is that YOU can't put it into words. Your
efforts to classify me using your delusional thought processes have
failed miserably and you don't know what to do about it.

How about something new. Prove your Flat Earth system changes a
negative expectation in a positive one.

···

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

I doubt this very much. Please give supporting evidence. There are
some arguments for playing full coin, but not many if the payback

is

significantly less than 100%. If the CB + BB + comps is enough to
make the game positive, then full coin would be appropriate. Most
folks will tell you not to play if the game is too bad.

I don't understand what it is that you doubt. I believe we are
agreeing on what properly understood 'advantage play' recommends,
which is not to play or, if you must, to put less money on negative
games -i.e.: one coin- so as to lose less in the long term. You want
supporting evidence that some 'serious VP players' tell you to play
full coin in negative games so as to take advantage of the royal
premium? Well, that is too long for me to do. Just go to VP places
and put 'short coin' or 'one coin' on the search engine and you will
find tons and tons of evidence.

···

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

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

Yes, you are a joke. If you really had that MBA you claim then

you'd understand simple statistics (VERY SIMPLE). There's no
guarantees, any individual can win on negative games or lose on
positive games. There's plenty of examples of both. However, you are
MORE likely to win over time playing the HIGHER payback machines
(including CB, BB, comps). That's all there is. Nothing you say can
change these FACTs. If you don't understand this then you are either
lying about your MBA or lying in this thread to promote your Flat
Earth system (or both).

1. Who cares if they win playing "over time"? I, just like EVER
NORMAL GAMBLER ON EARTH, wants to win EVERY SESSION I PLAY! The fact
that I win ALMOST every one of them presents waaay more than enough
examples to render ANY stupid math model saying otherwise, useless.

2. Unlike you, I will submit the following, and after you check it
out (if you can afford the postage/phone bills on a retiree's
income) let me know so I can publicly ridicule in both Gaming Today
and the Star Tribune (you DO know where that paper is I hope).
MBA, 3.4gpa, graduated 5/77, Boston College. And BTW--your Simple
Statistics was not part of the graduate program. It was advanced,
and apparently, too advanced for your Simple Mind.

Funny, that's exactly my opinion of you. However, at least

advantage play folks are telling the truth, unlike you.

Very original. Time for the next dose of preparation H so when you
squirm here it doesn't get too uncomfortable.

I am STILL not promoting a system and therefore have nothing to
prove. You on the other hand keep hiding your head in that rectal
orifice of yours and trying any and everything to avoid looking

like the liar you are. Feel free to challenge me another 1000 times

because it means nothing. You are considered a liar until you show
factual proof of the existence of promised mathematicians.

You are promoting long-term strategy, but I understand why you don't
want to be known as such. Your inexperience is overwhelming. Support
your credentials and get closure. Too much of a coward to do so?
That's OK, because I understand people who like to hide behind their
computers and criticize successful people.

Never said that. You're such an idiot. You should really take a
reading comprehension course.

Of course you would not come right out and say ANYTHING. That's your
game--be cloudy, meely-mouthed, and make believe you actually said
something comprehensible. And then you get heated up when caught.
The only thing more predictable is Kerry getting embarrassed in Nov.

What you really mean is that YOU can't put it into words.

You mean you have to resort to COPYING what I just wrote? Is there
an old man's convention you're late for or something?

Your efforts to classify me using your delusional thought processes
have failed miserably and you don't know what to do about it.

Classify? These are passing inputs. You and I both know you're
nobody important, and that you get that oh so important feeling
trading e-mails with me.

How about something new. Prove your Flat Earth system changes a
negative expectation in a positive one.

Not sure what a Flat Earth System is. But how are you on believing
in historical data? At what point do the examples you criticize
because you don't want to believe in them, overcome your neurosis
with math models? Read my site's listing of historical events. 225
incidents, over $600k of profit, almost all negative games, 1
catastrophic loss along with only one phenominal win, early-on
verification by both publishers, and a longevity of nearly 8 years.
Plunk that info into your "theoretical math model" and then see why
you have to call me a liar rather than accept the facts as they
really are. It'll all boil down to your not WANTING any of it to be
true because it would both create a more real enormous state of
jealousy on your part, as well as put your so-called mathematical
mind into some unrecognizeable tilt mode--causing you to nearly lose
what's left of your mind after all these years.

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

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

wrote:

>
> I doubt this very much. Please give supporting evidence. There

are

> some arguments for playing full coin, but not many if the payback
is
> significantly less than 100%. If the CB + BB + comps is enough to
> make the game positive, then full coin would be appropriate. Most
> folks will tell you not to play if the game is too bad.

I don't understand what it is that you doubt. I believe we are
agreeing on what properly understood 'advantage play' recommends,
which is not to play or, if you must, to put less money on negative
games -i.e.: one coin- so as to lose less in the long term. You

want

supporting evidence that some 'serious VP players' tell you to play
full coin in negative games so as to take advantage of the royal
premium? Well, that is too long for me to do. Just go to VP places
and put 'short coin' or 'one coin' on the search engine and you

will

find tons and tons of evidence.

If you mean "serious VP players" that have no clue about payback,
expert play, etc. then I agree wholeheartedly. So what? I always
chuckle when I hear this from people who clearly have no idea what
they are talking about.