SIN CITY and OLD BIDDIES

[rgmustain]

Rob,

I answered your question directly. No ducking. You, however, just
admitted you really don't have any proof. Thanks.

Dick

You're still ducking the question....as you know. That's not what I
would expect from a scientific mind.

Absolute proof is given only when absilutely necessary. In my case,

I

had 2 very skeptical publishers, and after 25 or so trips, I gave
them that proof. And, they witnessed one of my play sessions. But

it

ended almost as quickly as it started at Terrible's with a dollar

RF

on 8/5 BP.

In this case there's little to be gained, and since I rarely play
single-play strategy these days and have moved all my money

locally,

it wouldn't work anyway. But if you think I go out and play only

100%

+ games over a dollar, then please tell me where they are. On

dollars

I always play 10/7 if it's available where I play--and given the
resorts I frequent, they usually don't have it. There's a few

casinos

with >100% around, but it's rare. In any case, I almost always play
BP--whether it be 8/5, 7/5, or 6/5. Since I usually win, I don't

need

your positive games anyway. If you don't believe me then so be it.

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

wrote:

> Rob,
>
> I can turn around and say the same thing back to you. Please give
me
> absolute proof that you have made money playing games that play
back
> less than 100% and using non-expert play strategy. By the way,

bank

> account statements don't count. You must have certifiable

evidence

> that the machines you were playing were < 100% payback.

Otherwise,

> you are just proving advantage play DOES work. Come on, Rob, give
me
> the proof.
>
> As I've said many times there is no such thing as proof of

success.

> Anyone can say anything they want over an internet forum. I've

said

> I've made a profit. You've said you've made a profit. You've
asserted
> that yours is proof and mine is not. What a bunch of malarky.
>
> The ONLY real way to determine anyones potential for success is
> through the math. Unlike you Rob, the math doesn't lie.
>
> Dick
>
> > Dick:
> >
> > Your post reminds me of the way a politician reacts to common
> sense,
> > and what they do when asked to do something to support what

they

> have
> > preached. I've continually asked you to provide this
forum...right
> > here....with direct supporting rationale that would prove--or

you

> may
> > submit the proof from any of these other members of your secret
> > society of winners--that you or any of them actually win from
using
> > strictly long-term strategy. I'm not asking for anything more
than
> > real proof--not practice, theory, probability, using math

models,

> > algorythmic hocus pocus, or anything else. If you even approach
how
> I
> > proved my play results to my publishers, I'll accept that. If

you

> > cannot do that then please say so. There's no more need to

double-

> > talk as if it's been taken right out of one of Dan Paymar's
books.
> Be
> > clear and be thorough, because anything less will be a waste of
> > time.
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
> wrote:
> > > Rob, I have nothing more to add to this diatribe that I

haven't

> > > already written. This is way to typical of your rantings. You
> make
> > > all kinds of assertions and provide absolutely no supporting
> > > evidence. Do you really think anyone believes you? Especially
> given
> > > the mean spirited way in which you refer to others.
> > >
> > > Dick
> > >
> > > PS. I will get back to the facts in a later post.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...>
wrote:
> > > > I have several disagreements with what you just wrote.

First,

> > I've
> > > > heard far too often about how there's a certain small super-
> > > > knowledgeable, optimal-play crowd who supposedly know more
than
> > the
> > > > others, understand video poker better than the others, and
are
> > > > willing to put in "the work" over and above all the others

in

> > order
> > > > to make it that way. That makes little sense. The crowd you
> > > allegedly
> > > > are included in leads to that conclusion. As Rastis
mentioned,
> > Jean
> > > > Scott has - by her own admission - absolutely NO knowledge

of

> how
> > > > math works, and cannot explain anything about optimal play
> except
> > > as
> > > > in her own words, "I Win!" I Win!". So please explain how

it

is
> > she
> > > > wins as she claims (and as I personally know she does not--
> which
> > is
> > > > why she hates me so much) without knowing why? Further, can
you
> > > > picture this attention-seeking/VIP loving/professional-
wannabee
> > > > putting in ANY kind of work other than driving to and from

as

> > many
> > > > casinos as she can stay awake for and she has the remaining
> > > bankroll
> > > > for? Second, it is highly unlikely any of this secret crowd
> does
> > > > anything other than manufacture stories of winning with
optimal
> > > play.
> > > > Why? Because no one has ever offered even the slightest
method
> of
> > > > actual winning proof to anyone, AND they HAVE to say they

win-

-
> or
> > > > else who would buy any of that junk they sell? Make sense

yet?

> > > >
> > > > The big problem with Jean, Bob, Skip, etc. that Rastis is
> talking
> > > > about also has to do with them pushing incomplete rationale
to
> > > their
> > > > customers. Never do they tell anyone about the dangers of
> playing
> > > > long-term strategy. All they care about is making money off
of
> > > people-
> > > > -whether it be from sales or teaching or charging for web
> access.
> > > It
> > > > stands to ultimate reason: IF THEY WIN LIKE THEY SAID THEY
DID,
> > > > THEY'D HAVE ZERO NEED FOR OUR MONEY. That's why I charge

for

> > > nothing,
> > > > I freely give my time to as many players as I can handle, I
> > answer
> > > > every e-mail no matter how tedious it gets--without charge
> > (unlike
> > > > Dancer and your friend Dan Paymar), and why it is

refreshing

> for
> > > > people to see that someone such as me actually exists in

the

> > gaming
> > > > community. I have no problem with them making a living,
> but 'tell
> > > the
> > > > truth about that living'.
> > > >
> > > > I'll take a line out of several of your responses: Do we
really
> > > need
> > > > to know what you say your other activities are? A certain
Phd.
> > > friend
> > > > of mine says a person will offer unnecessary information
simply
> > to
> > > > cover up a problem others may perceive he or she has based

on

> an
> > on-
> > > > going discussion. I think you know what that might be.
> > > >
> > > > > As for Jean, Bob, Skip, etc. I'm not sure I agree with

your

> > > > position.
> > > > > First of all, we live in a capitalistic system and they

are

> > > simply
> > > > > doing no more or less than anyone else trying to make a
buck.
> > You
> > > > may
> > > > > not like it, but the system has proved to be successful
> overall.
> > > > >
> > > > > If all the advantage plays disappear I will spend more

time

> on
> > my
> > > > > other recreational ventures (golf, tennis, bowling, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Dick
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz"
> > > <vpvegas@c...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > RR thinks you have done a great job defining your
> position.
> > RR
> > > > > agrees with the math. "Long Term" is the fly in the
> ointment.
> > > Most
> > > > > players will never play enough hands in a lifetime to
assure
> > > > a "long
> > > > > term" results (though there are many who will achieve

this

> > since
> > > > they
> > > > > live in LV and play every day for many hours). I would
accept
> a
> > > > > minimum of a million hands as long term play. The vast
> > majority
> > > of
> > > > > players are playing short term and in the short term
anything
> > can
> > > > > happen. For those players who do play enough hands to
> qualify
> > > > > as "long term" players, being humans, they will simply

make

> > > > > mistakes. Very few if any can play that number of hands
> > > perfectly.
> > > > > The results achieved by a computer will be far greater

than

> the
> > > > > results achieved by humans. Your math is sound for
computers
> > yet
> > > > > flawed for practically every human being. None the less,

I

> > agree
> > > > > with optimum play and strategy. RR believes it gives the
> player
> > > the
> > > > > best chance. That being said, I disagree with killing

the

> > goose
> > > > that
> > > > > lays the golden eggs. The gurus have obviously decided
there
> is
> > > > much
> > > > > more money to be made by selling the secrets to VP

success

> than
> > > by
> > > > > actually playing the games. Thus a few are being rewarded
at
> > the
> > > > > expense of many. The games are disappearing while those
that
> > > will
> > > > > suffer financially, blindly worship the few that are not
only
> > > > killing
> > > > > the games but laughing all the way to the bank (Jean
Scott's
> > own
> > > > > words, not mine).
> > > > > > When the code was cracked, the word got out and it was

a

> good
> > > > > thing. But greed being what it is, the gurus will not

stop

> > until
> > > > the
> > > > > games are no longer available. Jean Scott is just one
> example
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > greedy person who seeks fame and fortune at the expense

of

> > those
> > > > who
> > > > > follow blindly and worship her as a god. Scott is a pox
upon
> > > > optimum
> > > > > play VP and the irony is that she knows nothing about the
> > math.
> > > > > Scott started out as a simple English teacher who dug
through
> > the
> > > > > trash to find coupons to support her slot habit. I
understand
> > > what
> > > > > drives Scott. I do not understand why others stand idly

by

···

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

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> > while
> > > > she
> > > > > does everything she can to destroy these positive
expectation
> > > > gaming
> > > > > opportunities. Scott and others of her ilk, are putting
money
> > in
> > > > > their bank accounts and taking money from all the other
> optimum
> > > > > players as the full pay opportunities disappear daily.
Last
> > year
> > > > > thousands of games disappeared. AS more people learn
optimum
> > > > > strategy, more games will go until there are none with a
> > positive
> > > > > expectation for the player. The results are obvious.
Scott
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > few others get the fame and fortune and her cult of
> worshippers
> > > and
> > > > > all other optimum VP players get the shaft.

[rgmustain]

RR, So far I have not seen the demise of FPVP. Clearly there have
been major cutbacks but there are still plenty of good plays. Did you
really think it could last forever? Nothing lasts forever.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

I have never questioned the right of these capitalists to make a

buck. Certainly they are not heroes to those that would like to
continue to enjoy the benefits of FPVP. In fact they are killing the
games while "laughing all the way to the bank". They are the enemy
and will be treated as such by RR. I will leave it to morons and
fools to support and encourage these greedy capitalists in their
venture to destroy full pay video poker. The really sad part is that
they could make more money by keeping their mouths shut and actually
playing the games. But that involves too much work and would hasten
the demise of their fleeting "fame". It's so much easier to write the
same article, book or post and give the same speech over and over and
over and over and over again...until all that remains is a Queen
without subjects to worship her and a Dancer without a dance to
attend.

[rgmustain]

Rob, let's get back to the real basics. Something that can be proved
or disproved.

1+2 = 2+1 = 3. This is commutation.
1+(2+3) = (1+2)+3 = 6. This is associativity.

I think we all recognize these from basic math class. How does this
apply to VP? It applies directly. .

Let H(i) stand for the results of hand i. In other words, H(1) is the
results of playing a single hand. The overall results of a gambling
session can then be described as H(1) + H(2) + ... For example (let's
use JOB), you bet 1 unit on H(1) and get two pair for a 2 unit win.
Your overall result would be 2-1 = 1 and the value of H(1)=1. Assume
now for your second hand you make another 1 unit bet and lose. The
value of H(2) is 0-1 = -1.

It's pretty easy to see that results from 100 hands is H(1) + H(2)
+ ... + H(100). What this simple exercise demonstates is that the
order of the wins/losses makes absolutely no difference. Your results
are the same. If you had lost the first hand above and got two pair
on the second hand the results would be identical. This is due to the
commutation of addition.

Now let's throw in the concept of a session which is composed of any
number of hands. We can describe S(1) as the results of session 1,
and S(n) the results of the session n. Again, using basic addition we
see the results of 20 sessions is S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). Once
again it is obvious that the order of the sessions makes no
difference in your final results. Indeed, I could defined R(1) as the
results of all the first hands of all the sessions, R(2) as the
results of all the second hands, etc. Using associativity and
commutation it's pretty easy to see that R(1) + R(2) + ... + R(100) =
S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). It's just another way of ordering the
additions.

In a similar manner we could define V(m) as the results from any
visit m to any casino.

Now let's assume you set a goal of +200 units and you reach this goal
after S(2). You quit and go home and call this V(1). The next week
you go back to a casino and start playing again. After two more
sessions, S(3) and S(4), you are down 200 units for this vist. What
are the results of these endeavors? They can be represented as
V(1)+V(2) or
S(1) + S(2) + S(3) + S(4) or
H(1) + H(2) + ... all the hands played during the two visits.

Now, using commutation we can represent these in any order. You could
have played S(3) and S(4) first and then left and went back a week
later and played S(1) and S(2). The overall results would be
identical.

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference whether you left
and came back a week later, a day later or a minute later or if you
were a time traveller and played them in reverse order. The results
of the hands played are the same. In fact, you could set a goal to
leave after losing 200 units and get the same results.

So, any goal setting when playing VP has absolutely no effect on any
persons overall results UNLESS they quit after reaching a goal and
NEVER gamble again.

The fact is lifetime results are simply H(1) + H(2) + ... for all the
hands you have or will ever play.

Do you agree or disagree?

Dick

[Dan_Cox]

So you've answered the question about your proof? Remember, I said
your version of proof is far different from mine, and I'm the one
asking for it. No mathematical babble about theory and why it should
work, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. And if you know how to read anything
other than those vp machines you stare at much, much too often, you'd
see where I've given proof to those who matter. You don't--or else
I'd take you into my bank and make you feel small again.

···

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

Rob,

I answered your question directly. No ducking. You, however, just
admitted you really don't have any proof. Thanks.

[Video_Poker_Vegas]

Such profound wisdom. Sir, you have replaced Hans at the top of my moron list.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: rgmustain
  To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:36 PM
  Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: The basics

  RR, So far I have not seen the demise of FPVP. Clearly there have
  been major cutbacks but there are still plenty of good plays. Did you
  really think it could last forever? Nothing lasts forever.

  Dick

  --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz" <vpvegas@c...>
  wrote:
  > I have never questioned the right of these capitalists to make a
  buck. Certainly they are not heroes to those that would like to
  continue to enjoy the benefits of FPVP. In fact they are killing the
  games while "laughing all the way to the bank". They are the enemy
  and will be treated as such by RR. I will leave it to morons and
  fools to support and encourage these greedy capitalists in their
  venture to destroy full pay video poker. The really sad part is that
  they could make more money by keeping their mouths shut and actually
  playing the games. But that involves too much work and would hasten
  the demise of their fleeting "fame". It's so much easier to write the
  same article, book or post and give the same speech over and over and
  over and over and over again...until all that remains is a Queen
  without subjects to worship her and a Dancer without a dance to
  attend.

  vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/v9qq

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

[Dan_Cox]

Addicts will continue on creating FPVP out of ANYTHING available no
matter what is taken out or changed. So you will never, ever
relinquish even the THOUGHT of stopping to play video poker
regardless what or how outside factors do--you aren't able to
contemplate such impossibilities! 7 years ago it was the machines
being >100% and nothing else. Then the gurus started adding cash
back.When machine pay back lowered you and your friends added in
comps when they swore they never said they would. Next came the
silliest of all compulsive gamblers additives: Tournament play
percentages. Now they add in gifts and gift certificates. Jean Scott
even adds in a sunny day and smiles from her favorite casino hosts
for .03 percentage points. You guys are geniuses allright.

···

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

RR, So far I have not seen the demise of FPVP. Clearly there have
been major cutbacks but there are still plenty of good plays. Did
you really think it could last forever? Nothing lasts forever.

[Video_Poker_Vegas]

DUDE, all good things must come to an end. Get out your bowling ball and put away your slide rule.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: rgmustain
  To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:58 PM
  Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: The basics

  Rob, let's get back to the real basics. Something that can be proved
  or disproved.

  1+2 = 2+1 = 3. This is commutation.
  1+(2+3) = (1+2)+3 = 6. This is associativity.

  I think we all recognize these from basic math class. How does this
  apply to VP? It applies directly. .

  Let H(i) stand for the results of hand i. In other words, H(1) is the
  results of playing a single hand. The overall results of a gambling
  session can then be described as H(1) + H(2) + ... For example (let's
  use JOB), you bet 1 unit on H(1) and get two pair for a 2 unit win.
  Your overall result would be 2-1 = 1 and the value of H(1)=1. Assume
  now for your second hand you make another 1 unit bet and lose. The
  value of H(2) is 0-1 = -1.

  It's pretty easy to see that results from 100 hands is H(1) + H(2)
  + ... + H(100). What this simple exercise demonstates is that the
  order of the wins/losses makes absolutely no difference. Your results
  are the same. If you had lost the first hand above and got two pair
  on the second hand the results would be identical. This is due to the
  commutation of addition.

  Now let's throw in the concept of a session which is composed of any
  number of hands. We can describe S(1) as the results of session 1,
  and S(n) the results of the session n. Again, using basic addition we
  see the results of 20 sessions is S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). Once
  again it is obvious that the order of the sessions makes no
  difference in your final results. Indeed, I could defined R(1) as the
  results of all the first hands of all the sessions, R(2) as the
  results of all the second hands, etc. Using associativity and
  commutation it's pretty easy to see that R(1) + R(2) + ... + R(100) =
  S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). It's just another way of ordering the
  additions.

  In a similar manner we could define V(m) as the results from any
  visit m to any casino.

  Now let's assume you set a goal of +200 units and you reach this goal
  after S(2). You quit and go home and call this V(1). The next week
  you go back to a casino and start playing again. After two more
  sessions, S(3) and S(4), you are down 200 units for this vist. What
  are the results of these endeavors? They can be represented as
  V(1)+V(2) or
  S(1) + S(2) + S(3) + S(4) or
  H(1) + H(2) + ... all the hands played during the two visits.

  Now, using commutation we can represent these in any order. You could
  have played S(3) and S(4) first and then left and went back a week
  later and played S(1) and S(2). The overall results would be
  identical.

  In other words, it makes absolutely no difference whether you left
  and came back a week later, a day later or a minute later or if you
  were a time traveller and played them in reverse order. The results
  of the hands played are the same. In fact, you could set a goal to
  leave after losing 200 units and get the same results.

  So, any goal setting when playing VP has absolutely no effect on any
  persons overall results UNLESS they quit after reaching a goal and
  NEVER gamble again.

  The fact is lifetime results are simply H(1) + H(2) + ... for all the
  hands you have or will ever play.

  Do you agree or disagree?

  Dick

  vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/v9qq

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

[Video_Poker_Vegas]

BUT ROB. Just look inside of the Queen's garage. That loot has got to be worth a couple of hundred bucks. I mean, you can't have enough jackets. And that scooter...what a Kodak moment that was...priceless!

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: deadin7
  To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:11 PM
  Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: The basics

  --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
  > RR, So far I have not seen the demise of FPVP. Clearly there have
  > been major cutbacks but there are still plenty of good plays. Did
  >you really think it could last forever? Nothing lasts forever.

  Addicts will continue on creating FPVP out of ANYTHING available no
  matter what is taken out or changed. So you will never, ever
  relinquish even the THOUGHT of stopping to play video poker
  regardless what or how outside factors do--you aren't able to
  contemplate such impossibilities! 7 years ago it was the machines
  being >100% and nothing else. Then the gurus started adding cash
  back.When machine pay back lowered you and your friends added in
  comps when they swore they never said they would. Next came the
  silliest of all compulsive gamblers additives: Tournament play
  percentages. Now they add in gifts and gift certificates. Jean Scott
  even adds in a sunny day and smiles from her favorite casino hosts
  for .03 percentage points. You guys are geniuses allright.

  vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/v9qq

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

[Dan_Cox]

Rob, let's get back to the real basics. Something that can be

proved or disproved.

After all that classroom technique you ask me if I agree or disagree
if a player's results can be different whether they set goals or not?
Obviously they can, and I disagree to the extent that you're assuming
all results experienced by a computer and a person will be close to
identical. That's why your math is innacurate. It doesn't apply to
people when gambling--in fact, far from it. Again, you and your crowd
may WANT it to in order to justify a habit, but the reality of the
situation is that you and I know it does not.

The "it's all one event whether you stop at certain goals or not"
argument is even more flawed. Your math cannot address progression,
special plays, or even practicality. All you can say is that a
negative game will produce negative results over infinity--or a
million hands or whatever. From a practical point, who's to say that
making special plays during a progression won't produce enough huge
winners along the long-term path that no math model could ever
anticipate? That's what happens to me. Sure, if I continued at the
same denomination such as the $10 machine after hitting four Aces on
DDB, or if I did an even more stupid thing like Dancer does by
succumbing to his severe addiction and climbing up in denomination
after a big win until he gets to where he is now by 'lessons-
learned', I'd probably be bust right now. But I go down in
denomination, and you don't address that deviation either. All that
math you showed has no meaning in short-term strategy. In fact,
wasn't this a Bob Dancer column in Gaming Today the week before they
fired him?

1+2 = 2+1 = 3. This is commutation.
1+(2+3) = (1+2)+3 = 6. This is associativity.

I think we all recognize these from basic math class. How does this
apply to VP? It applies directly. .

Let H(i) stand for the results of hand i. In other words, H(1) is

the

results of playing a single hand. The overall results of a gambling
session can then be described as H(1) + H(2) + ... For example

(let's

use JOB), you bet 1 unit on H(1) and get two pair for a 2 unit win.
Your overall result would be 2-1 = 1 and the value of H(1)=1.

Assume

now for your second hand you make another 1 unit bet and lose. The
value of H(2) is 0-1 = -1.

It's pretty easy to see that results from 100 hands is H(1) + H(2)
+ ... + H(100). What this simple exercise demonstates is that the
order of the wins/losses makes absolutely no difference. Your

results

are the same. If you had lost the first hand above and got two pair
on the second hand the results would be identical. This is due to

the

commutation of addition.

Now let's throw in the concept of a session which is composed of

any

number of hands. We can describe S(1) as the results of session 1,
and S(n) the results of the session n. Again, using basic addition

we

see the results of 20 sessions is S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). Once
again it is obvious that the order of the sessions makes no
difference in your final results. Indeed, I could defined R(1) as

the

···

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

results of all the first hands of all the sessions, R(2) as the
results of all the second hands, etc. Using associativity and
commutation it's pretty easy to see that R(1) + R(2) + ... + R(100)

=

S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). It's just another way of ordering the
additions.

In a similar manner we could define V(m) as the results from any
visit m to any casino.

Now let's assume you set a goal of +200 units and you reach this

goal

after S(2). You quit and go home and call this V(1). The next week
you go back to a casino and start playing again. After two more
sessions, S(3) and S(4), you are down 200 units for this vist.

What

are the results of these endeavors? They can be represented as
V(1)+V(2) or
S(1) + S(2) + S(3) + S(4) or
H(1) + H(2) + ... all the hands played during the two visits.

Now, using commutation we can represent these in any order. You

could

have played S(3) and S(4) first and then left and went back a week
later and played S(1) and S(2). The overall results would be
identical.

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference whether you left
and came back a week later, a day later or a minute later or if

you

were a time traveller and played them in reverse order. The results
of the hands played are the same. In fact, you could set a goal to
leave after losing 200 units and get the same results.

So, any goal setting when playing VP has absolutely no effect on

any

persons overall results UNLESS they quit after reaching a goal and
NEVER gamble again.

The fact is lifetime results are simply H(1) + H(2) + ... for all

the

hands you have or will ever play.

Do you agree or disagree?

Dick

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> Rob, let's get back to the real basics. Something that can be
proved or disproved.

After all that classroom technique you ask me if I agree or

disagree

if a player's results can be different whether they set goals or

not?

Obviously they can, and I disagree to the extent that you're

assuming

all results experienced by a computer and a person will be close to
identical.

Never once did I mention a computer or advantage play. I just trying
to understand if you understand the very basics of addition, you
know, 1+1=2, and how it applies to VP.

That's why your math is innacurate. It doesn't apply to
people when gambling--in fact, far from it.

So you assert 1+1 != 2. Boy are you out on a limb now.

Again, you and your crowd
may WANT it to in order to justify a habit, but the reality of the
situation is that you and I know it does not.

I am not a crowd. Just me. One person. Not trying to justify anything
just trying to discuss basics.

What I know is the results of anyones play can be computed by the sum
of all the individual hands they play. You want to insert some
unknown power in the process. Voodoo? This is part of your scam.

The "it's all one event whether you stop at certain goals or not"
argument is even more flawed.

I didn't say it's one event, I said the results can be computed
independent of when you play. Of course, multiple sessions
are "equivalent" to a single session of the same number of hands. I
sure hope this simple addition didn't go too far over your head.

Your math cannot address progression,
special plays, or even practicality.

First of all I want you to accept 1+1 = 2. If you can't even do this
there's no reason to show you your progression logic is flawed, let
alone your ridiculous 1700+ special plays.

All you can say is that a
negative game will produce negative results over infinity--or a
million hands or whatever.

No, that's not what I said in my note. Never a single reference to
it. I'm attempting to show you how simple it is to compute anyones
results.

From a practical point, who's to say that
making special plays during a progression won't produce enough huge
winners along the long-term path that no math model could ever
anticipate?

The laws of the universe as we know them. Of couse, your voodoo logic
must be able to circumvent them. You seem to think simple addition is
flawed.

That's what happens to me. Sure, if I continued at the
same denomination such as the $10 machine after hitting four Aces

on

DDB, or if I did an even more stupid thing like Dancer does by
succumbing to his severe addiction and climbing up in denomination
after a big win until he gets to where he is now by 'lessons-
learned', I'd probably be bust right now. But I go down in
denomination, and you don't address that deviation either. All that
math you showed has no meaning in short-term strategy. In fact,
wasn't this a Bob Dancer column in Gaming Today the week before

they

fired him?

You've pretty much already admitted you don't believe 1+1=2 so
anything else you state is worthless. If you think a progression
system changes the rules of simple addition then show me how. By the
way, before you make yourself look too stupid, the results of any
progressive system can before shown by a simple addition as well.

If you take a 3 session progression of an even game then you have 8
possible results:

LLL,LLW,LWL,LWW,WLL,WLW,WWL,WWW
(the total results are the sum of the 3 sessions)

This logic can be extended to any number of sessions. As anyone can
see the first session is just as likely to be a losing session as a
winning session. So, you were just as likely to lose money in DDB
example above and never see the four aces. If you then move upward in
denomination you have the following four possibilities:

LL,LW,WL,WW

Pretty much the same, you are just as likely to lose as you are to
win. However, if you lose then you are then faced with W,L as
possible outcomes of the 3rd session. Once again you are just as
likely to lose. So, moving upward (or downward or sideways) in a
progression does ABSOLUTELY nothing to change the odds of winning or
losing the next session.

This is still basic math. Of course, you'll now try to invoke some
kind of voodoo logic to overcome reality.

Dick

>
> 1+2 = 2+1 = 3. This is commutation.
> 1+(2+3) = (1+2)+3 = 6. This is associativity.
>
> I think we all recognize these from basic math class. How does

this

> apply to VP? It applies directly. .
>
> Let H(i) stand for the results of hand i. In other words, H(1) is
the
> results of playing a single hand. The overall results of a

gambling

> session can then be described as H(1) + H(2) + ... For example
(let's
> use JOB), you bet 1 unit on H(1) and get two pair for a 2 unit

win.

> Your overall result would be 2-1 = 1 and the value of H(1)=1.
Assume
> now for your second hand you make another 1 unit bet and lose.

The

> value of H(2) is 0-1 = -1.
>
> It's pretty easy to see that results from 100 hands is H(1) + H

(2)

> + ... + H(100). What this simple exercise demonstates is that the
> order of the wins/losses makes absolutely no difference. Your
results
> are the same. If you had lost the first hand above and got two

pair

> on the second hand the results would be identical. This is due to
the
> commutation of addition.
>
> Now let's throw in the concept of a session which is composed of
any
> number of hands. We can describe S(1) as the results of session

1,

> and S(n) the results of the session n. Again, using basic

addition

we
> see the results of 20 sessions is S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20).

Once

> again it is obvious that the order of the sessions makes no
> difference in your final results. Indeed, I could defined R(1) as
the
> results of all the first hands of all the sessions, R(2) as the
> results of all the second hands, etc. Using associativity and
> commutation it's pretty easy to see that R(1) + R(2) + ... + R

(100)

=
> S(1) + S(2) + ... + S(20). It's just another way of ordering the
> additions.
>
> In a similar manner we could define V(m) as the results from any
> visit m to any casino.
>
> Now let's assume you set a goal of +200 units and you reach this
goal
> after S(2). You quit and go home and call this V(1). The next

week

> you go back to a casino and start playing again. After two more
> sessions, S(3) and S(4), you are down 200 units for this vist.
What
> are the results of these endeavors? They can be represented as
> V(1)+V(2) or
> S(1) + S(2) + S(3) + S(4) or
> H(1) + H(2) + ... all the hands played during the two visits.
>
> Now, using commutation we can represent these in any order. You
could
> have played S(3) and S(4) first and then left and went back a

week

> later and played S(1) and S(2). The overall results would be
> identical.
>
> In other words, it makes absolutely no difference whether you

left

> and came back a week later, a day later or a minute later or if
you
> were a time traveller and played them in reverse order. The

results

> of the hands played are the same. In fact, you could set a goal

to

> leave after losing 200 units and get the same results.
>
> So, any goal setting when playing VP has absolutely no effect on
any
> persons overall results UNLESS they quit after reaching a goal

and

···

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

> NEVER gamble again.
>
> The fact is lifetime results are simply H(1) + H(2) + ... for all
the
> hands you have or will ever play.
>
> Do you agree or disagree?
>
> Dick

[rgmustain]

Thank you RR. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Dick

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

Such profound wisdom. Sir, you have replaced Hans at the top of my

moron list.

  From: rgmustain
  To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:36 PM
  Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: The basics

  RR, So far I have not seen the demise of FPVP. Clearly there have
  been major cutbacks but there are still plenty of good plays. Did

you

  really think it could last forever? Nothing lasts forever.

  Dick

  --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz"

<vpvegas@c...>

  wrote:
  > I have never questioned the right of these capitalists to make

a

  buck. Certainly they are not heroes to those that would like to
  continue to enjoy the benefits of FPVP. In fact they are killing

the

  games while "laughing all the way to the bank". They are the

enemy

  and will be treated as such by RR. I will leave it to morons and
  fools to support and encourage these greedy capitalists in their
  venture to destroy full pay video poker. The really sad part is

that

  they could make more money by keeping their mouths shut and

actually

  playing the games. But that involves too much work and would

hasten

  the demise of their fleeting "fame". It's so much easier to write

the

  same article, book or post and give the same speech over and over

and

···

  ----- Original Message -----
  over and over and over again...until all that remains is a Queen
  without subjects to worship her and a Dancer without a dance to
  attend.

  vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/v9qq

--------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    FREEvpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rasti$ P. Rulz" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

DUDE, all good things must come to an end. Get out your bowling

ball and put away your slide rule.

Let's see it's raining and 45 degrees outside right now. I think I
will go bowling.

Oh, by the way, it doesn't take a slide rule to do simple addition.

Dick

[Dan_Cox]

> After all that classroom technique you ask me if I agree or
disagree if a player's results can be different whether they set

goals or not? Obviously they can, and I disagree to the extent that
you're assuming

all results experienced by a computer and a person will be close to
identical.

Never once did I mention a computer or advantage play. I just

trying to understand if you understand the very basics of addition,
you know, 1+1=2, and how it applies to VP.

Then I'm not sure if you even know why you're asking dumb questions
about addition! For your very simplistic answer, 1+1=2 has nothing to
do with video poker. Again your math and the spin you put on it is a
feel-good position addicts take in order to justify to everyone else
why they can't stop playing.

I am not a crowd. Just me. One person. Not trying to justify

anything just trying to discuss basics.

I've seen your ridiculous posts on other forums, and yes, you are
part of the expert-play crowd. By definition, you folks HAVE to
justify -- to each other if no one else -- your reason for playing so
much. It's the only way you can theoretically fantasize a purpose for
doing such a non-sensical thing. All of you get strength from each
other, and none of you has any sense of your own direction.

What I know is the results of anyones play can be computed by the

sum

of all the individual hands they play. You want to insert some
unknown power in the process. Voodoo? This is part of your scam.

Absolutely not. That's part of the long-term play strategy scam--
which you are a part of.(even though you deny being part of any
crowd). I know a person who came to LV and played video poker for 4
days--his 1st time ever. He won $6200 playing on 10/7 DB, but he was
killed on the drive back to LA. So let's see your math compute
his "sum of all individual hands he played" and come out at +$6200.
None of this BS about "but gee Rob, play fair now. He never had the
chance to give almost all of it back so as to attain that math
model/tiny percentage win that he is expected to attain". Your not as
smart as you portray yourself as, with all those mumbo-jumbo
calculations and theories, are you....

I didn't say it's one event, I said the results can be computed
independent of when you play. Of course, multiple sessions
are "equivalent" to a single session of the same number of hands. I
sure hope this simple addition didn't go too far over your head.

OK, so you don't get it. We all play only in short term bursts, none
of which have anything to do with any of the others. If you still
don't get it, all I can picture is you sitting in a corner with thick
glasses on fumbling unbelieveably with your recently-greased slide
rule, scratching your head intermittently.

> From a practical point, who's to say that
> making special plays during a progression won't produce enough

huge winners along the long-term path that no math model could ever
anticipate?

The laws of the universe as we know them. Of couse, your voodoo

logic must be able to circumvent them. You seem to think simple
addition is flawed.

That's why you don't believe my results as reported on my site. You
don't WANT it to be true, because then all that math you are
controlled by in your life would make you go nuts if you had the
slightest inclination that I do not lie. Simply said, you're afraid.

If you take a 3 session progression of an even game then you have 8
possible results:
LLL,LLW,LWL,LWW,WLL,WLW,WWL,WWW
(the total results are the sum of the 3 sessions)

What a bunch of nonsense! Who cares what one of your books says??

[rgmustain]

> > After all that classroom technique you ask me if I agree or
> disagree if a player's results can be different whether they set
goals or not? Obviously they can, and I disagree to the extent that
you're assuming
> all results experienced by a computer and a person will be close

to

>identical.

> Never once did I mention a computer or advantage play. I just
trying to understand if you understand the very basics of addition,
you know, 1+1=2, and how it applies to VP.

Then I'm not sure if you even know why you're asking dumb questions
about addition! For your very simplistic answer, 1+1=2 has nothing

to

do with video poker.

So, your telling me the results of the first hand you play PLUS the
results of the second hand you play DO NOT equal your current
win/loss position. This is equivalent to saying 1+1!=2. If you can't
understand even this basic concept your IQ is in the lower 1% of the
total population.

Of course, I know you understand this and you know where this
discussion is going. You know I can prove your entire scam system is
not worth a dime.

Again your math and the spin you put on it is a
feel-good position addicts take in order to justify to everyone

else

why they can't stop playing.

Once again Rob brings up addiction. Whenever I see this I know you
are panicing. Keep saying it Rob, it's just nonsense. I would suggest
you go back to you psychiatrist friend and ask what he thinks about
you bringing up the same thing over and over again.

> I am not a crowd. Just me. One person. Not trying to justify
anything just trying to discuss basics.

I've seen your ridiculous posts on other forums, and yes, you are
part of the expert-play crowd. By definition, you folks HAVE to
justify -- to each other if no one else -- your reason for playing

so

much. It's the only way you can theoretically fantasize a purpose

for

doing such a non-sensical thing. All of you get strength from each
other, and none of you has any sense of your own direction.

Nope, just you and me in this discussion Rob. You're trying to weasel
your way out of it but it won't work.

>
> What I know is the results of anyones play can be computed by the
sum
> of all the individual hands they play. You want to insert some
> unknown power in the process. Voodoo? This is part of your scam.

Absolutely not. That's part of the long-term play strategy scam--

Let's see, Robs' saying it's a scam to say your overall results are
the sum of the individual hands that you play. Do you look insane or
what?

which you are a part of.(even though you deny being part of any
crowd). I know a person who came to LV and played video poker for 4
days--his 1st time ever. He won $6200 playing on 10/7 DB, but he

was

killed on the drive back to LA. So let's see your math compute
his "sum of all individual hands he played" and come out at +$6200.

This players' results fits in perfectly with what I have been saying.
His overall results were the sum of the individual hands he played.
In this case he had good results. Please tell me how his being killed
in a car accident has anything to do with VP!

None of this BS about "but gee Rob, play fair now. He never had

the

chance to give almost all of it back so as to attain that math
model/tiny percentage win that he is expected to attain". Your not

as

smart as you portray yourself as, with all those mumbo-jumbo
calculations and theories, are you....

Try again. I just said his results fit perfectly with what I have
been saying.

>
> I didn't say it's one event, I said the results can be computed
> independent of when you play. Of course, multiple sessions
> are "equivalent" to a single session of the same number of hands.

I

> sure hope this simple addition didn't go too far over your head.

OK, so you don't get it. We all play only in short term bursts,

none

of which have anything to do with any of the others.

Thank you, were starting to get somewhere. Each session (or burst)
is, in fact, independent of every other. In fact, a single hand is
just a "shorter term" burst than a session. You've just laid the
groundwork for doing a statisitical analysis.

If you still
don't get it, all I can picture is you sitting in a corner with

thick

glasses on fumbling unbelieveably with your recently-greased slide
rule, scratching your head intermittently.

When did you get that engineering degree you're so proud of? Slide
rules haven't been around for decades. First came calculators and now
we have computers to do the work for us. You appear to be in the dark
ages about anything technical. It's no longer the '60s Rob, wake up.

>
> > From a practical point, who's to say that
> > making special plays during a progression won't produce enough
huge winners along the long-term path that no math model could ever
anticipate?
>
> The laws of the universe as we know them. Of couse, your voodoo
logic must be able to circumvent them. You seem to think simple
addition is flawed.

That's why you don't believe my results as reported on my site. You
don't WANT it to be true, because then all that math you are
controlled by in your life would make you go nuts if you had the
slightest inclination that I do not lie. Simply said, you're afraid.

Your reported results mean nothing since you can't prove them. Your
attempts to talk your around this are preposterous. Get over it.

As for math controlling my life, what a nonsensical reply. Math is a
technique for representing the real world simply and directly. It
allows scientists to understand the basics of our universe as well as
things that effect our everyday lives. But, since you indicate 1+1 !=
2, I guess anything is possible in your mind.

>
> If you take a 3 session progression of an even game then you have

8

> possible results:
> LLL,LLW,LWL,LWW,WLL,WLW,WWL,WWW
> (the total results are the sum of the 3 sessions)

What a bunch of nonsense!

Actually this is pretty simple. You have an even game and you either
win or lose. Is that too complicated? Doesn't even require a book
since I just laid it all out for you in 3-4 lines.

Once again, Rob chooses to run away from the obvious since he knows
this will expose his scam.

Who cares what one of your books says??

Anyone who wants to be successful at VP instead of scamming others.

Dick

···

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

[bonuspokergod]

Could you please explain what you mean by scamming people? Rob's
whole site is **** FREE *****. A concept foreign to the guru crowd,
I'm sure.

Anyone who wants to be successful at VP instead of scamming others.

Dick

Next time out, give his strategy a shot. If you don't want to risk
money, try it on WinPoker. That's what I've done. Actually I've
been doing it as time permits on a daily basis for over 5 months
now, to prove to myself before I get to deep into it in real casino
play. Very simply, it works.

I was WELL in the red, both for real money and on Dancer's own
software, using long-term perfect play strategy. But that is no
more. Thanks to Rob.

[Dan_Cox]

> Then I'm not sure if you even know why you're asking dumb

questions about addition! For your very simplistic answer, 1+1=2 has
nothing to do with video poker.

So, your telling me the results of the first hand you play PLUS the
results of the second hand you play DO NOT equal your current
win/loss position. This is equivalent to saying 1+1!=2. If you

can't understand even this basic concept your IQ is in the lower 1%
of the total population.

That's like saying "the weight of the crap you took today plus the
weight of the crap you will take tomorrow equals X--and that is
simple addition". Big Deal! Must you make a math exam out of
everything in life? You know, that's why I appear to know much more
than you. I've experienced the world and its realities while you're
content to run math models and wonder how and why after the theories,
probabilities and statistics. Thank you for giving me more material
for another common-sense based article. You may be famous yet!

> Again your math and the spin you put on it is a
> feel-good position addicts take in order to justify to everyone
else
> why they can't stop playing.

Once again Rob brings up addiction. Whenever I see this I know you
are panicing. Keep saying it Rob, it's just nonsense. I would

suggest you go back to you psychiatrist friend and ask what he thinks
about you bringing up the same thing over and over again.

I did. He sais if there's reason, it's proper. It's the person in
denial that responds that need take a good, long look in the mirror.

Nope, just you and me in this discussion Rob. You're trying to

weasel your way out of it but it won't work.

I probably have a lot more time than you, even though you waste your
life away in casinos. So who is it that's weaseling out?

Let's see, Robs' saying it's a scam to say your overall results are
the sum of the individual hands that you play. Do you look insane

or what?

Yes I do--to you. And how important is THAT?

This players' results fits in perfectly with what I have been

saying. His overall results were the sum of the individual hands he
played. In this case he had good results. Please tell me how his
being killed in a car accident has anything to do with VP!

You missed it again, Dick.

When did you get that engineering degree you're so proud of? Slide
rules haven't been around for decades. First came calculators and

now we have computers to do the work for us. You appear to be in the
dark ages about anything technical. It's no longer the '60s Rob, wake
up.

Um, I think I was mocking you....you know, like when I asked how many
pens you can fit into your shirt-pocket holder? Maybe you're not
trying, but you sure come across as a closed-minded math geek from
the 50's.

Your reported results mean nothing since you can't prove them. Your
attempts to talk your around this are preposterous. Get over it.

And you know what's even more satisfying that ruffling your feathers?
Counting the money you don't think I have from video poker.

Actually this is pretty simple. You have an even game and you

either win or lose. Is that too complicated? Doesn't even require a
book since I just laid it all out for you in 3-4 lines.Once again,
Rob chooses to run away from the obvious since he knows this will
expose his scam.

You believe everything's a scam if you didn't come up with it. I
believe I spot just a tad bit of jealousy.

> Who cares what one of your books says??
Anyone who wants to be successful at VP instead of scamming others.

I want to ask for substantiation of that statement, but I don't want
to see a barrage of mathematical nonsense instead of a common sense
answer again.

[Dan_Cox]

I don't believe math geeks have the capability of doing anything
other than in a straight line--win or lose. The blinders take care of
that. It's why I'm soooo thankful for that crowd. No one bunch loses
as much or fills the machines up as much for me when I play.

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

Could you please explain what you mean by scamming people? Rob's
whole site is **** FREE *****. A concept foreign to the guru

crowd,

I'm sure.

>
> Anyone who wants to be successful at VP instead of scamming

others.

···

>
> Dick

Next time out, give his strategy a shot. If you don't want to risk
money, try it on WinPoker. That's what I've done. Actually I've
been doing it as time permits on a daily basis for over 5 months
now, to prove to myself before I get to deep into it in real casino
play. Very simply, it works.

I was WELL in the red, both for real money and on Dancer's own
software, using long-term perfect play strategy. But that is no
more. Thanks to Rob.

[rgmustain]

I started this new thread (the basics), in an attempt to get away
from the flaming and unprovable assertions of the previous thread. I
intentionally did not mention advantage play. I could see two
possible results:

1) Rob would make a reasonable attempt to discuss the basics of VP
play.
2) Rob would attempt to turn this back into the previous thread with
more unproveable assertions and character denigration.

It's pretty clear the path Rob has chosen.

This also pretty much proves Rob has no interest in an intelligent
discussion of VP basics. Why would this be? This only logical reason
is he knows it will disclose his own techniques are flawed..

Therefore, I will provide some more evidence that's Rob's methods are
flawed and that even his own statements contradict one another.

1) RS states he wins on a regular basis without using advantage play
techniques.
2) RS states that no one can win in the long term even when the
payback of the game is greater than 100%.

Assume 1000's of people use the RS method and therefore win on a
regular basis. This group of people would certainly play millions of
hands, enough hands to qualify for the "long term". This group would
also win money. However, this contradicts 2), Rob has asserted many
times that no one can win in the "long term". Therefore, the original
premise must be flawed. The original premise in this case is that if
you use RS's method you will win on a regular basis..

Need more evidence. Since Rob asserts you can win even playing
negative games (I think he mentioned 6-5 bonus poker), this group of
RS followers could even be playing at an advantage on negative
payback games. Once again, since the group is playing enough hands to
qualify statistically for the long term, they are essentially turning
a negative game into a positive game. This is impossible.

Now, Rob will come along with his usual replies. Calling standard
mathematics hocus-pocus (or nonsense as he states below); stating how
he's proved his methods work because he says so (and he's a famous VP
writer); and, of course, everyone who disagrees with him is addicted
to gambling.

Dick

PS. Unless Rob at least attempts to say something intelligent in his
next reply, this will be my last post in this thread.

> > Then I'm not sure if you even know why you're asking dumb
questions about addition! For your very simplistic answer, 1+1=2

has

nothing to do with video poker.
>
> So, your telling me the results of the first hand you play PLUS

the

> results of the second hand you play DO NOT equal your current
> win/loss position. This is equivalent to saying 1+1!=2. If you
can't understand even this basic concept your IQ is in the lower 1%
of the total population.

That's like saying "the weight of the crap you took today plus the
weight of the crap you will take tomorrow equals X--and that is
simple addition". Big Deal! Must you make a math exam out of
everything in life?

No, not at all, but neither will I hide from it like you do.

You know, that's why I appear to know much more
than you. I've experienced the world and its realities

Once again, Rob telling us how great he is.

while you're
content to run math models and wonder how and why after the

theories,

probabilities and statistics. Thank you for giving me more material
for another common-sense based article. You may be famous yet!

Rob, actually I'm not really a math guy at all. I pretty much never
think about it. I know just a enough about statistics and simple high
school math to know the truth when I see it. Nothing more is required
to see through your scams.

>
> > Again your math and the spin you put on it is a
> > feel-good position addicts take in order to justify to everyone
> else
> > why they can't stop playing.
>
> Once again Rob brings up addiction. Whenever I see this I know

you

> are panicing. Keep saying it Rob, it's just nonsense. I would
suggest you go back to you psychiatrist friend and ask what he

thinks

about you bringing up the same thing over and over again.

I did. He sais if there's reason, it's proper. It's the person in
denial that responds that need take a good, long look in the

mirror.

Then, I suggest you find a mirror.

>
> Nope, just you and me in this discussion Rob. You're trying to
weasel your way out of it but it won't work.

I probably have a lot more time than you, even though you waste

your

life away in casinos. So who is it that's weaseling out?

Been to a casino once in the last 10 days. Not exactly wasting my
life away is it. If anything both of us are wasting our lives away in
front of a computer.

>
> Let's see, Robs' saying it's a scam to say your overall results

are

> the sum of the individual hands that you play. Do you look insane
or what?

Yes I do--to you. And how important is THAT?

Well, at least you finally admit it.

>
> This players' results fits in perfectly with what I have been
saying. His overall results were the sum of the individual hands he
played. In this case he had good results. Please tell me how his
being killed in a car accident has anything to do with VP!

You missed it again, Dick.

Don't think so, your statement was attempting to indicate if someone
dies then how can they ever reach long term. However, I'm simply
trying to get agreement on the basics of VP. Your attempt to change
the subject was obvious.

>
> When did you get that engineering degree you're so proud of?

Slide

> rules haven't been around for decades. First came calculators and
now we have computers to do the work for us. You appear to be in

the

dark ages about anything technical. It's no longer the '60s Rob,

wake

up.

Um, I think I was mocking you....you know, like when I asked how

many

pens you can fit into your shirt-pocket holder? Maybe you're not
trying, but you sure come across as a closed-minded math geek from
the 50's.

The slide rule mocking is about as childish as it gets. Of course,
you must not have realized it makes you look like someone who's never
got past his grade school development.

>
> Your reported results mean nothing since you can't prove them.

Your

> attempts to talk your around this are preposterous. Get over it.

And you know what's even more satisfying that ruffling your

feathers?

Counting the money you don't think I have from video poker.

One, two, uh one, two, uh one, uh, where's the beer ...

>
> Actually this is pretty simple. You have an even game and you
either win or lose. Is that too complicated? Doesn't even require a
book since I just laid it all out for you in 3-4 lines.Once again,
Rob chooses to run away from the obvious since he knows this will
expose his scam.

You believe everything's a scam if you didn't come up with it. I
believe I spot just a tad bit of jealousy.

Nothing here new to the world. I certainly didn't come up with basic
math. Probably someone in 15th century. Looks like your spotters out
of whack.

>
> > Who cares what one of your books says??
> Anyone who wants to be successful at VP instead of scamming

others.

I want to ask for substantiation of that statement, but I don't

want

to see a barrage of mathematical nonsense instead of a common sense
answer again.

Rob, once again states math is nonsense. Let's get back to flat earth
concept of yours again ...

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

I started this new thread (the basics), in an attempt to get away
from the flaming and unprovable assertions of the previous thread.

You started a supposed "new thread" because you're neurotic about
your theoretical fantacizing on why I'm a so-called 'scammer'.

I could see two possible results:

1) Rob would make a reasonable attempt to discuss the basics of VP

play.

I did, only because it doesn't fit your agenda you lost your woody
over it.

2) Rob would attempt to turn this back into the previous thread

with more unproveable assertions and character denigration.

I don't have to prove anything any more, because I'm the greatest vp
player of all time. Accept it....or let it keep eating away at you.

This also pretty much proves Rob has no interest in an intelligent
discussion of VP basics. Why would this be?

Because only sissies discuss 'the basics'. These 'basics' are what
led to my development of my winning Play Strategies.

This only logical reason is he knows it will disclose his own
techniques are flawed.

You're a day late and a dollar short, Dick. That's been tried
unsuccessfully on me for almost 4 years now, and those who understand
common sense also understand that math in vp is nothing more
than "basic BS" after a certain point.

1) RS states he wins on a regular basis without using advantage

play techniques.

Be thorough. I play 90%-95% computer-perfect plays on every game, but
I rarely play positive games. I don't moronically and compulsively
chase casino promotions, because I know those are only there to make
a ton more profit from those who believe they ARE so-
called "advantage players". And I don't consider cash back as part of
my profiting from the game.

2) RS states that no one can win in the long term even when the
payback of the game is greater than 100%.

Not accurate again, Dick. I said those who DO win using your flawed
method do so only because they've experienced far more luck than
skill. Of course this is arbitrary, because no one can say or agree
upon when true long-term is attained. Your crowd argues about that
aspect all the time, and I enjoy the battle.

Assume 1000's of people use the RS method and therefore win on a
regular basis. This group of people would certainly play millions

of hands, enough hands to qualify for the "long term". This group
would also win money.

I've played my method since 1997, and millions of hands I have not
played. Yes, I used to play millions of hands when I was a fool long-
term believer, but you'll never see me waste my life away that long
in casinos again. The rest of your babble I think was written by your
Queen of baloney many times.

Need more evidence. Since Rob asserts you can win even playing
negative games (I think he mentioned 6-5 bonus poker), this group

of

RS followers could even be playing at an advantage on negative
payback games. Once again, since the group is playing enough hands

to

qualify statistically for the long term, they are essentially

turning

a negative game into a positive game. This is impossible.

Now, Rob will come along with his usual replies. Calling standard
mathematics hocus-pocus (or nonsense as he states below); stating

how

he's proved his methods work because he says so (and he's a famous

VP

writer); and, of course, everyone who disagrees with him is

addicted

to gambling.

Dick

PS. Unless Rob at least attempts to say something intelligent in

his

···

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

next reply, this will be my last post in this thread.

[Harry_Porter]

What ... you guys took the night off?

Guess ya gotta feed the dog sometime ...

- H.