> You admit (1) the math is valid and (2) learning Perfect play
isn't
> difficult, and then you state the "theory doesn't work". Amazing!
> The first two items ARE the theory in practice. QED.
That's an incomplete answer to what I said. That's typical of
people
who aren't capable of going any further with a 'theory'.
No, what I said is proof. You just can't seem to understand the
basics of simple math and logic.
. All you're doing is preaching a math class. Where's
> > YOUR proof--you always ask for mine! Prove to me that you're
more
> > than a boring math geek when it comes to video poker.
> "boring math geek"? Looks like you're back in the 3rd grade
again.
> Name calling is a clear sign you have lost the ability to debate
> intelligently.
Even if you're hurt by my truthful response, that's no reason not
to
answer the questions or debate the statements. I see nothing but a
cop out here.
Another good belly laugh. How does one debate name calling?
>
> Let's see, you stated in the last note that it was impossible to
> prove or disprove whether someone made a profit (I even agreed
with
> you) and now your asking for the exact proof you said was
impossible.
So why do you keep asking ME to produce evidence that I win? Have
you
figured that part out yet or what?
No, in the last post I never ask for you to provide evidence that you
win. I thought we agreed earlier that this was not possible. Once
again you show a complete lack of reading comprehension. I did ask
you to provide mathematical support for your systems.
> I will repeat what I stated before. I have no motive to lie. I
will
> not make a dime if anyone believes me or not.
Seems like you've taken that statement from several of my articles.
I have never read any of your articles. So, once again, another of
your assertions is false. It's becoming more apparent that your ego
is your driving factor. You tend to use the "I" word and the "my"
word to excess.
> > Show us how a human can attain the same results as a computer,
how we never tire, are never distracted, and never make mistakes. I
never said any of this was necessary. Are you going off the deep
end?
What's the 'deep end'? Yes, you were portraying that position until
I
rattled you into saying the equivalent of "you don't really need to
play perfectly--just almost perfectly". That's what they all say
when
I open that can of worms. It's an unsubstantiated position on a
theory that doesn't work with people and you know it. Even Skip
Hughes knows it.
Rattled? Since I've never said completely accurate play is required
how do you come to this conclusion? You must be dreaming again. As
for "unsubstantiated", you are once again ignoring the mathematical
proof.
> No, you tell me, what's the difference between your system and
> Martingale?
You mean you can't figure that out? A mathematical mind that isn't
able to understand this point? Martingale works only on table
games.
In video poker, I've lost 32 hands in a row -- all within the same
denomination -- and still went home with +$2600. I double nothing.
The casino can't stop me with too high a limit for my bankroll. My
system and that disastrous method is as far apart as day & night.
If I remember right you move up to the next higher denomination
machine when you lose a certain amount a money. Please, correct me if
I'm wrong. I don't want to mis-state your system before I show you
it's mathematically equivalent to the Martingale system.
> This is pure and simple garbage. Produce any mathematical model,
> statistical model or objective empirical evidence that what you
are
> saying is true? Of course, you can't since it's not based on a
sound mathematical foundation.
>This is the RS scam ... That somehow you can structure your
betting
> to change mathematical probabilities. It just doesn't work that
way
> Rob and never will. Over time anyone's results will approach the
> level of skill they use. If they play at a 99% skill level then
they will lose 1% of their money.If you say anything else works
(like
your progression system) that gives people false hope, and that
makes
you a fraud.
The reason you can't accept my Play Strategies is because you don't
know enough about them. I don't alter anything mathematically, in
fact, I don't care about or even consider mathematics when I play.
This pretty much nets out the whole problem with your approach.
That's where all you optimal-play fanatics go wrong. You're tied to
a
strategy that only the casinos have an advantage at.
Quit with the worthless assertions. You have never proved this and,
in fact, can't prove it. The mathematically based proof I have
previously described has shown just the opposite to be true.
If you play at a
99% skill level you WILL lose 1% of your money--over hundreds of
millions of hands.
Wrong again, it may take thousands to maybe 5 million hands depending
on the volatility of the game. It's in the math.
But no one either cares about or does that--it's
just a classroom theory who's "practice" is enjoyed only by the
casinos. They're the only ones who see that much play. I don't win
by
altering the math. I go after high-paying winners that almost
always
show, and I don't usually need them to win. And I'm not greedy--I
stop when I reach a limit. That's called taking complete advantage
of
good luck and walking when it arrives.
Now you're stating that your system is "luckier" than a
mathematically sound approach. Is this funny or what?
As for giving people false
hope, I don't care what they have or do. I'm not selling them
anything about strategy. I report my play results, answer thousands
of questions about my strategies, and tell people if they don't
understand my 1700+ special plays then they likely won't win as
often
and as much percentage-wise as I do.
So, this is how you get around the inevitable losses that will come
to those who use your system. You come back with "Oh, you must have
missed option 1399 out of the 1700+ special plays". I'm getting a
better picture of your scam all the time.
You and your misconceptions are
what creates this perceived 'scam' you're always mentioning.
No misconceptions required.
> So, you don't make any money writing for GT?
No, I turned down the money--which is probably a lot to Hughes and
Dancer and the Queen but not to me--for occasional ads on my book
and
site. And if they stop those I'll still write for as long as I or
they want me to. My message about the fradulent long-term strategy
method and the phony gurus who sell that baloney for their own gain
is what drives me.
No, I think you're driven by your own eqo. Since you can't get
attention presenting a factual representation of VP you've gone to an
anti-establishment approach to catch whatever praise you can get.
> Nope, this is all in your mind. I suspect because you had/have an
> addiction it makes you feel better to think most others have the
same weakness/disease. It just ain't so. Get over it.
As I said, people who gamble as you say you do and deny they have
this addiction do have it. You have your opinion and I have mine,
but
I'm the one known for separating the truth from fiction. All you
are
is someone in denial. As a writer you would fail.
Nope, you have your assertions and your scam, and I have the facts.
Too bad your ego keeps you in "denial".
> All you need to do is ask. I have talked with many people in Las
> Vegas, Reno and elsewhere that make a profit. They have no motive
to lie to me as they are not selling anything. Naturally, there are
> always a few who exaggerate, but they are in the minority.
How do you know who's in the minority and who's in the majority?
You
and your group always say "there's hundreds of pros and other
players
prowling the streets of Nevada who win win win with advantage play,
soak the casinos for comps, gifts, and cash back, get a ton of
freebies, and yet no casino manager ever blinks an eye--and all
this,
with the Queen blabbing all over the place where she does it and
how
much they give her "for free". And I'm sure you know there's no
bigger liars than gamblers....except fishermen. So if you believe
all
those people you claim to have discussed their prowess with, that
proves less than nothing.
I agree it proves nothing, just like "all" of your assertions. I was
just giving you a little of your own medicine.
> Like I said, it is not necessary to play perfectly to play with
an
> advantage. However, it does require a high degree of accuracy.
> Harping on the "perfect-play" issue is is a waste of time. It's
not
> needed nor is it relevant.
Accuracy, perfection....the next thing you'll say is immortality.
Nope, not required.
OK,
so like I said, it's the default statement that you and your kind
come out with when I talk common sense about the subject.
If you consider an unsound mathematical approach to be common sense
then you are showing very little common sense.
> I'm going assume this is a truthful statement. So, here's a
little
of my personal history for you. For over 20 years I gambled a
couple
of times a year playing mostly slots. Naturally, I lost during this
> time, but I never gambled very much (nickel/quarter) and never
> considered myself much of a gambler. My wife is actually the one
who loves to gamble. When I started playing advantage VP I went the
first 5 1/2 months without a RF. I also had about 1/2 the number of
> secondary jackpots (equivalent of 4 deuces) in this same period
of
> time. During this time I played over 200K hands. I lost over
$6,000
> playing .25 VP. I could easily have become discouraged and given
up. Instead, I kept with it. This was almost 6 years ago. Since
then
I have probably played 3-4 million hands and I am ahead. My overall
> results are almost exactly what the math predicts. So, "it"
> actually "does work" if you stay with it for the long term.
If I assume what you're saying is the truth, you're play has been
blessed by luck--esp. lately.
Lately? Over 5 1/2 years. You must work on that reading comprehension.
The rest is common sense. Video poker
uses very little skill. How hard is it to make the seemingly
correct
hold? And who's to say that if you didn't, a good winner wouldn't
appear over and over and over and over again--easily wiping out any
perceived disadvantage you'd have for years to come. 2-3 million
hands is not a good sampling at all when we're talking about a game
where people can easily be distracted, tire, and make many mistakes
they have no idea they're making.
Your assertions are getting weaker and weaker. Talking about a single
hand/hold has nothing to do with long term success. However, "2-3
million hands" is a sufficiently large number of hands to be
mathematically sound.
> I don't know why you experienced poor results. It probably was
just
> poor luck like it was for me. If you've made money since then,
it's
> probably due to a simple change in luck. Since you are still
using
> expert play strategies then you are the beneficiary of advantage
> play. Your progression system and "quit when you reach a goal
> strategy" may have helped you overcome your addiction, but it's
had
> absolutely nothing to do with your long term results.
You've actually said something that's 100% correct and I agree
wholeheartedly with. Yes, it is the reason why I no longer have
that
addiction, or desire to play for long periods of time. But you're
dead wrong when you don't accept my strategy is why I'm so far
ahead
now. Increases in denomination as well as volatility do make a
difference.
Show me the math. You can't because it just isn't true.
Check out my record on my site. You know how many times
you've sat at a machine and have been ahead by ANY amount--but left
a
loser. I usually don't leave a loser, because I take advantage of
the
many times i'm ahead.
From a mathematical standpoint all of your play is equivalent to a
single session. It has to do with mathematical associativity. You
know associativity don't you (3+2+1 = 1+2+3)? What you said above is
pure fantasy.
> Nope. Short term: luck is the most important factor, long term:
> strategy is the most important factor. This is supported by the
math and your assertions cannot change it.
You're wrong again. Every hand won is due to luck.
I think that's what I just said. Or, doesn't one hand qualify as
short term in your mind? Now if you want to restate that as "All
hands won are due to luck" then I would disagree. This is when the
math becomes important.
You may WANT it to
be due to some strategy or playing prowess, but you have no control
over the most important part of the game: the deal. And it's even
more important on multi-plays. Skill has little to do with any of
it,
and you know that.
Skill has everthing to do with it and I know that. Your assertions
mean nothing. You like to focus on a single hand or, in this case a
single deal, that's not relevant. What is relevant is your skill
level across many hands.
> Spoken like a true scammer. You sound like a TV commerical for
the
> latest gym equipment. "Just 3 minutes a week and you too can have
perfect abs". If you want to be successful at any endeavor then
hard
work is required. I like being successful, so I continue to work at
it.
I'm very successful at the game and I have nothing to do with it
when
I'm home except when people come to town and want to train at the
Indian casino. Besides, I believe a home occupied with a habit has
seen better days. Around here, you won't see me try to force my
wife
or boyfriend (like Dancer and the Queen have done) into believing
that video poker is the most important thing on earth. That comes
from an uncontrollable compulsion to gamble. Working at it while at
home? I consider that a confidence-building sickness.
Of course you do, anything that would make someone successful would
eliminate them as a potential victim of your scams.
> What a bunch of mularky.
>Looks like I hit the truth pretty much right on the nose. I can
> always tell when you start babbling.
So you have nothing prepared to defend it--big surprise.
Defend what. Unproveable assertions on your part. You're getting
funnier by the moment.
> NO. To me it's money AND entertainment. Since your "play plan" is
> mathematically unsound then you are wasting a lot of time.
More denial.
Not on my part. I'm still waiting for any mathematical support for
your endless assertions.
> More babble. Don't you have anything at all clever to say. This
must be about the 10th time you've repeated yourself.
Must be because you don't show you understood anything prior.
I think you've got that backwards. I'm the one with the mathematical
proof. You're the one with nothing but worthless assertions.
> Covered earlier. First you say a proof is impossible, then you
say
> give me a proof. Make up your mind.
OK, give me proof. That's what you ask of me, is it not?
I already gave you a mathematical proof. You love to skip over that
and get back to the unproveable assertions of wins/losses.
> You really have lost it. We agree expert play is mathematically
> sound. You stated earlier it's not that difficult to master. It's
now simply up to the "law of large numbers". That is, the long
term.
This is a sound mathematical fact. Before you disagree, read on ..
Back to the classroom again. And again, it all means nothing to
anyone anytime they play. It's simply a feel-good position those
who
are overly addicted to the game take in order to justify their
habit.
It means everything if someone wants to be successful. Keep on
denying the facts, it's really a gas to see you make a fool of
yourself.
> Since you stated earlier you're an engineer you should know this.
> Quantum physics contains a lot probability theory. It's how
scientist
> are able to accurately predict much of nature when studying
particles
> at an atomic scale. The "law of large numbers" is how Quantum
physics
> manifests itself in the macro world. If you disagree with this
fact,
> then that is the equivalent of saying the universe does not exist.
Back to the classroom AGAIN.
No come back? No reference to addiction? You must be getting tired.
Of course, there's nothing meaningful you can say (even though that
seldom stops you). I'm talking irrefutable facts. Not surprising a
scamster like you would want to skip over this.
I didn't invent the math or the "probability theories", I'm simply
> trying to explain them to you. You resist because you'd have to
admit you're a fraud and all of your character assassinations were
targeted at those who were simply providing truthful information.
> If your publishers also deny mathematical facts then they are no
> better than you. However, I suspect they'd be more open.
So why don't you submit a sample of your writings and see what they
say??? As for the concept of math models & probability theories,
you're preaching to someone who could probably teach you a class on
them.
I'm ready. Start preaching.
I've been on both sides of the fence, and I came prepared.
Clearly, you're not prepared since you haven't given a single scrap
of evidence that's mathematically sound.
You're only on one side and you're not.
I'm prepared, come on let's see your "math models & probability
theories".
We're in different leagues.
That's the biggest misconception you critics have, and it's all
because you wear those expert-play blinders.
No blinders here. If you can show me mathematically sound evidence
supporting your position then I will agree with you.
Along this line of thought, I have shown you mathematically sound
evidence supporting advantage play and you still deny it's validity.
Who's wearing the blinders?
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: