The Ongoing Haunting of little dicky....or, I Want My MOMMY!

[Rob_Singer1]

More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen where
little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old empty
feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic. Cases in
point:

1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to support the
strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously lacking,
yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of unsersatnding, he gets
sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them shills, makes
believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely masterbates on my
book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the demons that
inhabit his world.

2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer, yet
whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim, he
freezes in-place! He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
that by his own admission he knows very little about my actual
strategy, and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel
good about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'
alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for
abvious reasons work against how they're actually performed. One
would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand whatever
they could if they were going to spend time running sims. Not so with
little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to eliminate the
whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie about me wherever
possible. In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting
caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'.

No one loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how
much fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be
able to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen where
little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old

empty

feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic. Cases in
point:

NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame,
fearsome power or omnipotence"

1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to support

the

strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously lacking,
yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of unsersatnding, he

gets

sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them shills, makes
believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely masterbates on my
book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the demons

that

inhabit his world.

NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and
affirmation "

2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer, yet
whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim, he
freezes in-place!

For starters:

1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no evidence of this
claim.
2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to validate his
system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.
3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST simulation
shows only 201 wins.
4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average of 52K at
6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.
5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a few hot
cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.
6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines well enough
to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say otherwise.
7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times at
level 5.

He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
that by his own admission he knows very little about my actual
strategy,

All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect than I
guess we need to list that as lie 8).

and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel
good about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'
alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for
abvious reasons work against how they're actually performed.

Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate scenarios",
whatever that means.

One
would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand whatever
they could if they were going to spend time running sims.

One would think Rob would have described them correctly. Since I'm
using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that HE
doesn't understand his strategies.

Not so with
little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to eliminate the
whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie about me wherever
possible.

Just the facts, as usual.

In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting
caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'.

No one loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all,

how

much fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be
able to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??

Rob must have run into some people who have been reading this forum
and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis. Obviously,
that hasn't changed.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:

More than ever these past few days---while I was once again

absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen where
little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old
empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic. Cases
in point:

NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame,
fearsome power or omnipotence"

Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean here....a stripper
at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it, flaunt it!"

1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to support

the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously
lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of understanding,
he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them shills,
makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely masterbates on
my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the demons
that inhabit his world.

NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and
affirmation "

Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've shown towards
me!

2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer, yet

whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim, he
freezes in-place!

For starters:

And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....

1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no evidence of

this claim.

Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little experience in or
understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In this case,
your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations, and you just
don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that aren't simple B&W.

2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to validate his
system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.

I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when making an
assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance, squirm, and
double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing how to
proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over having to ask
me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly, I do.

3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST

simulation shows only 201 wins.

Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to your
neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other than single
play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before making
believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-factual sims,
and trying to be something that you're not.

4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average of 52K

at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.

If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to produce it
rather than operate under the thin cover of your theoretical security
blamkey.....one in which the dufus who input the info didn't have the
facts and still doesn't. I think that says a lot about the integrity
level of someone like you.

5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a few hot

cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.

You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind at
ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement between
myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that doesn't do it
for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to believe me.
I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over me,
because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could someone else
POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me to win
against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
being 'random'--which is only for their own self-justification
purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and play for
ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!

6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines well

enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say otherwise.

If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you or any of
the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that. But right
now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards of a
thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.

7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times at

level 5.

If you only know how much others who write me understand how moronic
you look over this one....When you come to understand that not all my
sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is played at other
times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as stupid as you look.

> He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> that by his own admission he knows very little about my actual
> strategy,

All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect than I
guess we need to list that as lie 8).

All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of my
strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to perfectly
comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you could take
the easy way out and run with something that didn't take much effort.
I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.

and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel good about

his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create' alternate
scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for obvious
reasons work against how they're actually performed.

Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate scenarios",
whatever that means.

You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next time, when
facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more intelligent
than you, try to get the facts before running wild and scared. Then
you won't have to look this stupid afterwards again.

One would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand

whatever they could if they were going to spend time running sims.

One would think Rob would have described them correctly. Since I'm

using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that HE
doesn't understand his strategies.

So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages on this
forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in reporting' in
school and at work all those years? You never asked about anything--
only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come back at you
with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid unless we
spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire scenario. You
still don't understand anything because you don't want to, which
makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a good vp
player.

Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to

eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie about me
wherever possible.

Just the facts, as usual.

Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it together
about me.

In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting caught

with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No one loves a
nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how much fun is it
to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be able to do it
again and again as they beg for mercy??

Rob must have run into some people who have been reading this forum
and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis. Obviously,
that hasn't changed.

Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen where
little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old
empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic.

Cases

in point:

> NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame,
> fearsome power or omnipotence"

Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean here....a

stripper

at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it, flaunt it!"

A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction. I've
actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved me the
effort. LMAO.

> 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to support
the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously
lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of

understanding,

he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them shills,
makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely masterbates

on

my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the demons
that inhabit his world.

> NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and
> affirmation "

Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've shown

towards

me!

NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies ..."

> 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer, yet
whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim, he
freezes in-place!

> For starters:

And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....

> 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no evidence of
this claim.

Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little experience in

or

understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In this case,
your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations, and you

just

don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that aren't simple

B&W.

LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC regulations
relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations relate to
drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of us has a
contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I can see
it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have dual
meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.

> 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to validate his
> system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.

I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when making

an

assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance, squirm, and
double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing how to
proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over having to

ask

me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly, I do.

Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide this info?

> 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST
simulation shows only 201 wins.

Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to your
neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other than

single

play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before making
believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-factual sims,
and trying to be something that you're not.

How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than willing
to run a simulation for that number of sessions.

> 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average of 52K
at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.

If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to produce

it

rather than operate under the thin cover of your theoretical

security

blamkey.....one in which the dufus who input the info didn't have

the

facts and still doesn't. I think that says a lot about the

integrity

level of someone like you.

Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was using the 1%
number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions. When I
changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1 in 100
ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.

> 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a few hot
cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.

You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind at
ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement between
myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that doesn't do

it

for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to believe

me.

I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over me,
because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could someone

else

POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me to win
against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
being 'random'--which is only for their own self-justification
purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and play

for

ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!

The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this information he
would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go back a
year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS random.

> 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines well
enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say otherwise.

If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you or any

of

the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that. But right
now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards of a
thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes those who
say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be because one
group supports his con while the other group doesn't?

> 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times

at

level 5.

If you only know how much others who write me understand how

moronic

you look over this one....When you come to understand that not all

my

sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is played at

other

times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as stupid as you look.

Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back with another
lie. How sweet it is ...

> > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > that by his own admission he knows very little about my actual
> > strategy,

> All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect than I
> guess we need to list that as lie 8).

All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of my
strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to perfectly
comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you could

take

the easy way out and run with something that didn't take much

effort.

I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.

I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your strategy.
I guess we can list this as lie number 10).

> and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel good

about

his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create' alternate
scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for obvious
reasons work against how they're actually performed.

> Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate scenarios",
> whatever that means.

You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next time, when
facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more intelligent
than you, try to get the facts before running wild and scared. Then
you won't have to look this stupid afterwards again.

In one post Rob states I "admit" something and then turns right
around and agrees I didn't. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

> One would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand
whatever they could if they were going to spend time running sims.
>
>One would think Rob would have described them correctly. Since I'm
using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that HE
doesn't understand his strategies.

So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages on this
forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in reporting' in
school and at work all those years? You never asked about anything--

Lie 11). I asked you several questions over several posts.

only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come back at

you

with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid unless we
spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire scenario.

Lie 12). You never said any such thing.

You
still don't understand anything because you don't want to, which
makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a good vp
player.

Lie 13). I simulated your strategy as accurately as possible based on
the information you provided. I did not want to you to have any
escapes. I did exactly that.

> Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to
eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie about me
wherever possible.

> Just the facts, as usual.

Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it together
about me.

LMAO. Everyone knows EXACTLY what I meant.

> In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting caught
with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No one loves a
nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how much fun is

it

to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be able to do it
again and again as they beg for mercy??

> Rob must have run into some people who have been reading this

forum

> and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis.

Obviously,

> that hasn't changed.

Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??

RIV at his best. I think we can all assume Robbie lost his a** in LV.
He came back babbling the same insults over and over. A sure sign
that he was very upset. How sweet it is ...

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
> absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen where
> little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old
> empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic.
Cases
> in point:
>
> > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame,
> > fearsome power or omnipotence"
>
> Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean here....a
stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it, flaunt

it!"

A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction. I've
actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved me the
effort. LMAO.

HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on your face!
That simple like you've led along with the boring one you do
now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing bozos like
you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity, gravitational
effects, color, and geekiness!

>
> > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to

support

> the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously
> lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
understanding,
> he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them shills,
> makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely

masterbates

on
> my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the

demons

> that inhabit his world.
>
> > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention

and

> > affirmation "
>
> Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've shown
towards
> me!

> > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer, yet
> whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim,

he freezes in-place!

>
> > For starters:
>
> And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....
>
> > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no evidence

of this claim.

>
> Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little experience

in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In this
case, your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations, and
you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that aren't
simple
B&W.

LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC regulations
relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations relate to
drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of us has a
contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I can see
it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have dual
meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.

You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere analogy,
didn't you little dicky....One would think that with all that
perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of yours,
you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless without their
being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your DL is a
signed contract with the state that you'll play according to the
rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny piece of
plastic you pull out as proof of rights.

>
> > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to validate

his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.

I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when making
an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance, squirm, and
double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing how to
> proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
> inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over having to
ask me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly, I do.

Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide this info?

Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given names,
workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too cheap (or
broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know the truth
here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math behind my
strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological addiction to
play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a boring geek
and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to get their
fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here little dicky,
so be careful or I'll start charging you.

> > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST
> simulation shows only 201 wins.

> Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to your
> neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other than
single
> play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before making
> believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-factual

sims,

> and trying to be something that you're not.

How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than willing
to run a simulation for that number of sessions.

I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit and discuss
every special play you don't want to understand so you can see if you
have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll JUMP at!

> > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average of

52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.

> If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to produce
it rather than operate under the thin cover of your theoretical
security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the info

didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says a lot
about the integrity level of someone like you.

Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was using the

1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions. When I

changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1 in 100
ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.

Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have the right
input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally works. Play
highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as played on BP.
Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high denominational
level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand that pays a
whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!

> > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a few

hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.

>
> You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind at
> ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement between
> myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that doesn't do
it
> for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to believe
me.
> I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over me,
> because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could someone
else
> POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me to win
> against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
> being 'random'--which is only for their own self-justification
> purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and play
for
> ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!

The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this information he
would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go back a
year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS random.

1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum. You've
seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that now. So ???

2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the machines are to
be....only you can't read between the lines for its compatibility to
the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences. Education
is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
discussions. You've never been to the right class, so you'll never
get it.

> > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines well
> enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say

otherwise.

> If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you or any
of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that. But

right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards of a
thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes those

who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be because
one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?

Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have said
they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a solid
lifetime loss playing that addictive way.

7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times

at level 5.
  

> If you only know how much others who write me understand how
moronic you look over this one....When you come to understand that

not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is
played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as
stupid as you look.

Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back with

another lie. How sweet it is ...

....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my site to
verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes again!

> > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > that by his own admission he knows very little about my

actual strategy,

>
> > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect than

I guess we need to list that as lie 8).

>
> All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of my
> strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to perfectly
> comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you could
take the easy way out and run with something that didn't take much
effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.

I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your

strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).

There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies you're
telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up a meet
next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse? Love to
meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take notes so
you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to wiggle your
way out when you get caught wanting to make something up about my
strategy that's not there.
  

> > and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel good
about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'

alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for
obvious reasons work against how they're actually performed.

>
> > Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate scenarios",
> > whatever that means.
>
> You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next time,

when facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more
intelligent than you, try to get the facts before running wild and
scared. Then you won't have to look this stupid afterwards again.

In one post Rob states I "admit" something and then turns right
around and agrees I didn't. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

I do I do! Little dicky's pattern of making things up about my
strategy to fit his agenda, rather than to try to be accurate and
take the hits as they come along.
  

> > One would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand
> whatever they could if they were going to spend time running

sims.

> >One would think Rob would have described them correctly. Since

I'm using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that HE
doesn't understand his strategies.

> So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages on this
> forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in reporting'

in school and at work all those years? You never asked about anything-

Lie 11). I asked you several questions over several posts.

Stop dancing around the issue. You did everything you could NOT to
meet with me for the accurate info. Your agenda problem is very heavy.

> only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come back at
you with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid unless

we spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire scenario.

Lie 12). You never said any such thing.

Why not continue on with your lying when your dignity level has sunk
below the ground??

> You
> still don't understand anything because you don't want to, which
> makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a good vp
> player.

Lie 13). I simulated your strategy as accurately as possible based

on the information you provided. I did not want to you to have any

escapes. I did exactly that.

The only escape was you not desiring to do the right thing when all
you ever wanted was to run +=+ and -=-. Now I'm seeing you walking on
eggshells over this, and that alone shows your guilt over it all.

>
> > Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to
> eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie about

me wherever possible.

>
> > Just the facts, as usual.
>
> Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it together
> about me.

LMAO. Everyone knows EXACTLY what I meant.

Including me. My compliments for getting it right for a change.
  

> > In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting

caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No one
loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how much
fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be able
to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??
  

> > Rob must have run into some people who have been reading this
forum and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis.
Obviously, that hasn't changed.
>
> Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??

RIV at his best. I think we can all assume Robbie lost his a** in

LV. He came back babbling the same insults over and over. A sure sign

that he was very upset. How sweet it is ...

Stuck for something to say, are we???

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
> > absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen

where

> > little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that old
> > empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and logic.
> Cases
> > in point:
> >
> > > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success,

fame,

> > > fearsome power or omnipotence"
> >
> > Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean here....a
> stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it, flaunt
it!"
>
> A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction. I've
> actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved me the
> effort. LMAO.

HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on your face!
That simple like you've led along with the boring one you do
now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing bozos like
you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity,

gravitational

effects, color, and geekiness!

LMAO. Just a week ago Rob was trying to get everyone to believe he
was a god-fearing man. Claiming he would "pray" for me. Now, he shows
his degenerate side. Robbie, your frustration is clearly showing
everyone your true self.

>
> >
> > > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to
support
> > the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are obviously
> > lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
> understanding,
> > he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them

shills,

> > makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely
masterbates
> on
> > my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the
demons
> > that inhabit his world.
> >
> > > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention
and
> > > affirmation "
> >
> > Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've shown
> towards
> > me!

> > > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer,

yet

> > whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his claim,
he freezes in-place!
> >
> > > For starters:
> >
> > And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....
> >
> > > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no evidence
of this claim.
> >
> > Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little experience
in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In this
case, your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations, and
you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that aren't
simple
B&W.
>
> LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC

regulations

> relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations relate

to

> drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of us has

a

> contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I can

see

> it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have dual
> meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.

You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere analogy,
didn't you little dicky....

Nope ... both are factual examples of state mandated regulation of
licensees.

One would think that with all that
perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of yours,
you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless without their
being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your DL is a
signed contract with the state that you'll play according to the
rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny piece of
plastic you pull out as proof of rights.

LMAO. Not a contract, little man ... a LICENSE where you agree to
OBEY the rules and regulations. EXACTLY the same as the casinos. Now,
tell us how I can manipulate the driving regs. Robbie, you are
looking about as idiotic as possible. But, hey, keep defending your
idiotic stance. How sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to validate
his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.

>I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when making
> an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance, squirm,

and

> double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing how

to

> > proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
> > inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over having

to

> ask me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly, I do.
>
> Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide this info?

Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given names,
workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too cheap

(or

broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know the truth
here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math behind

my

strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological addiction

to

play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a boring geek
and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to get their
fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here little

dicky,

so be careful or I'll start charging you.

Lie, you've provided NO verifiable information. We already know
why ... you have none. Come on, just give us an email address and
we're in business.

> > > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST
> > simulation shows only 201 wins.

> > Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to your
> > neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other than
> single
> > play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before

making

> > believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-factual
sims,
> > and trying to be something that you're not.
>
> How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than

willing

> to run a simulation for that number of sessions.

I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit and

discuss

every special play you don't want to understand so you can see if

you

have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll JUMP at!

Perfect answer ... if you are a con man. Just tell us the number of
sessions, is it that too tough of a question?

> > > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average of
52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.

> > If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to

produce

> it rather than operate under the thin cover of your theoretical
> security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the info
didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says a lot
about the integrity level of someone like you.

> Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was using

the

1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions. When I
> changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1 in 100
> ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.

Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have the right
input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally works. Play
highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as played on

BP.

Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high

denominational

level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand that pays

a

whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!

ROTFLMAO. Another con man answer. You are doing my job for me better
than ever. Must be Jim's reference to you backing down with Fez has
you EVEN MORE frustrated.

PS. The hand AKQJ suited in diamonds with the Jack of spades pays
$5000 on OEJs. What does it pay on DDB? I'll make it easy for you ...
5 credits ($25) ... a push. Do you actually think anyone with a brain
doesn't see how stupid your comparison is?

> > > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a few
hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.
> >
> > You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind at
> > ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement between
> > myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that doesn't

do

> it
> > for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to

believe

> me.
> > I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over me,
> > because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could someone
> else
> > POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me to

win

> > against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
> > being 'random'--which is only for their own self-justification
> > purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and

play

> for
> > ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!
>
> The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this information

he

> would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go back

a

> year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS random.

1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum. You've
seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that now. So ???

Like I said. The old "inside info" con. ROTFLMAO. It is soooooo good
to see Robbie spilling his con. How sweet it is ...

2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the machines are to
be....only you can't read between the lines for its compatibility

to

the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences.

It's random ... except it's not really random ... except it is
random ... except ... Need I say more. How sweet it is ...

Education
is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
discussions. You've never been to the right class, so you'll never
get it.

I think we all "get it". Wink, wink. How sweet it is ...

> > > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines

well

> > enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say
otherwise.

> > If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you or

any

> of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that. But
right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards of a
thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.

> Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes those
who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be because
one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?

Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have said
they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a solid
lifetime loss playing that addictive way.

Lie. It doesn't get anymore obvious than this ...

> 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times
at level 5.
  
> > If you only know how much others who write me understand how
> moronic you look over this one....When you come to understand

that

not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is
played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as
stupid as you look.

> Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back with
another lie. How sweet it is ...

....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my site to
verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes again!

We all know exactly WHY you came forward with this after giving
different results just a few weeks ago. To protect the CON. Sorry,
moron, but changing your tune in mid-stream after being caught in a
lie only makes you look worse.

> > > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > > that by his own admission he knows very little about my
actual strategy,
> >
> > > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect

than

I guess we need to list that as lie 8).
> >
> > All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of my
> > strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to perfectly
> > comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you

could

> take the easy way out and run with something that didn't take

much

> effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.
>
> I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your
strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).

There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies you're
telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up a meet
next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse? Love to
meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take notes so
you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to wiggle your
way out when you get caught wanting to make something up about my
strategy that's not there.

Can we play tennis and bowl too? I'll be back in 3 weeks.

> > > and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel good
> about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'
alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that for
obvious reasons work against how they're actually performed.
> >
> > > Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate

scenarios",

> > > whatever that means.
> >
> > You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next time,
when facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more
intelligent than you, try to get the facts before running wild and
scared. Then you won't have to look this stupid afterwards again.
>
> In one post Rob states I "admit" something and then turns right
> around and agrees I didn't. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

I do I do! Little dicky's pattern of making things up about my
strategy to fit his agenda, rather than to try to be accurate and
take the hits as they come along.

LMAO. Which is it now, Robbie? Did I "admit" to it or not?

> > > One would thin such a geek wouly take the time to understand
> > whatever they could if they were going to spend time running
sims.

> > >One would think Rob would have described them correctly. Since
I'm using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that HE
doesn't understand his strategies.

> > So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages on

this

> > forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in reporting'
in school and at work all those years? You never asked about

anything-

> Lie 11). I asked you several questions over several posts.

Stop dancing around the issue. You did everything you could NOT to
meet with me for the accurate info. Your agenda problem is very

heavy.

Lie. Like I said before, neither you or I EVER discussed meeting over
your strategy. Isn't it interesting that you would attempt to claim
the opposite ...

> > only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come back

at

> you with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid

unless

we spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire scenario.
>
> Lie 12). You never said any such thing.

Why not continue on with your lying when your dignity level has

sunk

below the ground??

Come on, Robbie, show us a reference. Just one. You're making youself
look like a complete fool. Of course, you ARE quite handy at doing
that. How sweet it is ...

> > You
> > still don't understand anything because you don't want to,

which

> > makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a good

vp

> > player.
>
> Lie 13). I simulated your strategy as accurately as possible

based

on the information you provided. I did not want to you to have any
> escapes. I did exactly that.

The only escape was you not desiring to do the right thing when all
you ever wanted was to run +=+ and -=-. Now I'm seeing you walking

on

eggshells over this, and that alone shows your guilt over it all.

RIV. Anyone can go back to Dec. and read our exchanges.

>
> >
> > > Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost to
> > eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie

about

me wherever possible.
> >
> > > Just the facts, as usual.
> >
> > Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it

together

> > about me.
>
> LMAO. Everyone knows EXACTLY what I meant.

Including me. My compliments for getting it right for a change.

Thank you.

> > > In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting
caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No one
loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how much
fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be able
to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??
  
> > > Rob must have run into some people who have been reading this
> forum and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis.
> Obviously, that hasn't changed.
> >
> > Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??

> RIV at his best. I think we can all assume Robbie lost his a** in
LV. He came back babbling the same insults over and over. A sure

sign

> that he was very upset. How sweet it is ...

Stuck for something to say, are we???

RIV.

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > More than ever these past few days---while I was once again
> > > absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen
where
> > > little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that

old

> > > empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and

logic.

> > Cases
> > > in point:
> > >
> > > > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success,
fame,
> > > > fearsome power or omnipotence"
> > >
> > > Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean here....a
> > stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it,

flaunt

> it!"
> >
> > A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction.

I've

> > actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved me

the

> > effort. LMAO.
>
> HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on your

face!

> That simple like you've led along with the boring one you do
> now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing bozos

like

> you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity,
gravitational
> effects, color, and geekiness!

LMAO. Just a week ago Rob was trying to get everyone to believe he
was a god-fearing man. Claiming he would "pray" for me. Now, he

shows his degenerate side. Robbie, your frustration is clearly
showing everyone your true self.

I guess you'd call that the difference between living a boring grey-
area life----and living a vibrant one where experience in many arenas
teaches. You've been locked up in a nerd-room for work for years on
end, never going anywhere or doing anything but work. Now you've sunk
even lower into the doldrums of what to do during what were supposed
to be the golden years of fun and enjoyment. I suppose you're too far
into the dreaded downward spin of gambling to save the day anyway.
But I'll keep trying to help you little dicky. Insults, embarrassment
and ridicule always help when you've got nowhere to go but up. And
I'mn just the guy to both pray for you and the missus to escape from
your hell, and humiliate you at the same time! Oh what fun!!

> >
> > >
> > > > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to
> support
> > > the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are

obviously

> > > lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
> > understanding,
> > > he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them
shills,
> > > makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely
> masterbates
> > on
> > > my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize the
> demons
> > > that inhabit his world.
> > >
> > > > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation,

attention

> and
> > > > affirmation "
> > >
> > > Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've shown
> > towards
> > > me!
>
> > > > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the denyer,
yet
> > > whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his

claim,

> he freezes in-place!
> > >
> > > > For starters:
> > >
> > > And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....
> > >
> > > > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no

evidence

> of this claim.
> > >
> > > Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little

experience

> in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In this
> case, your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations,

and

> you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that

aren't

> simple
> B&W.
> >
> > LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC
regulations
> > relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations relate
to
> > drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of us

has

a
> > contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I can
see
> > it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have

dual

> > meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.
>
> You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere

analogy,

> didn't you little dicky....

Nope ... both are factual examples of state mandated regulation of
licensees.

And obviously, none which you have any comprehension of whatsoever.

> One would think that with all that
> perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of

yours,

> you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless without

their

> being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your DL is

a

> signed contract with the state that you'll play according to the
> rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny piece of
> plastic you pull out as proof of rights.

LMAO. Not a contract, little man ... a LICENSE where you agree to
OBEY the rules and regulations.

Let me see.....A signed AGREEMENT (as little dicky says a DL is) is
NOT a contract! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY the same as the casinos. Now,

tell us how I can manipulate the driving regs. Robbie, you are
looking about as idiotic as possible. But, hey, keep defending your
idiotic stance. How sweet it is ...

That's OK little dicky. As soon as you recover from my humiliating
you on the Contract issue, I'll give you time to spit out the marbles
in your mouth before you continue on.

> >
> > >
> > > > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to

validate

> his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.
>
> >I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when

making

> > an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance, squirm,
and
> > double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing how
to
> > > proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
> > > inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over having
to
> > ask me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly, I

do.

> >
> > Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide this

info?

>
> Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given names,
> workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too cheap
(or
> broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know the

truth

> here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math

behind

my
> strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological addiction
to
> play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a boring

geek

> and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to get

their

> fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here little
dicky,
> so be careful or I'll start charging you.

Lie, you've provided NO verifiable information. We already know
why ... you have none. Come on, just give us an email address and
we're in business.

Workplaces, cities, names. You've had them for a looong time. As
we've already seen numerous times, you're simply AFRAID of contacting
anyone or too broke to start. Use the phone. Use some of
that 'winning APer' money!

>
> > > > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST
> > > simulation shows only 201 wins.
>
> > > Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to

your

> > > neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other

than

> > single
> > > play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before
making
> > > believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-factual
> sims,
> > > and trying to be something that you're not.
> >
> > How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than
willing
> > to run a simulation for that number of sessions.
>
> I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit and
discuss
> every special play you don't want to understand so you can see if
you
> have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll JUMP

at!

Perfect answer ... if you are a con man. Just tell us the number of
sessions, is it that too tough of a question?

157---which you'll now apply YOU'RE agenda to the sim and continue to
be afraid to meet me to discern anything at all about the 1700+
special plays that make the strategy what it is--a winner to the tune
of 80%-90%. Go ahead. Keep looking dufusy. (Like that one?).

>
> > > > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an average

of

> 52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.
>
> > > If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to
produce
> > it rather than operate under the thin cover of your theoretical
> > security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the info
> didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says a lot
> about the integrity level of someone like you.
>
> > Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was using
the
> 1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions. When I
> > changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1 in

100

> > ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.
>
> Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have the

right

> input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally works.

Play

> highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as played on
BP.
> Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high
denominational
> level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand that

pays

a
> whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!

ROTFLMAO. Another con man answer. You are doing my job for me

better

than ever. Must be Jim's reference to you backing down with Fez has
you EVEN MORE frustrated.

How that is an answer to the input here is a wonder only a nerd's
mother could understand..... But I continue to enjoy the reference
to jim, fezzik, & this or that guy. It simply shows I've taken on the
world and no matter how many bozos line up to face me or how many try
to at one time and where, every one has always been knocked down (and
some out). I always prevail--as you so painfully have been taught.
But don't boil over here. Keep alert! I've got more eye-openers for
you down the road!

PS. The hand AKQJ suited in diamonds with the Jack of spades pays
$5000 on OEJs. What does it pay on DDB? I'll make it easy for

you ... 5 credits ($25) ... a push. Do you actually think anyone with
a brain doesn't see how stupid your comparison is?

HAHAHA! One-Eyed-Jacks?? NOBODY plays that game, and if you do then
you're NOBODY! (Duh....I already knew that). So now let's do some of
your geek-math you so heavily rely upon when you are at a loss for
words. Suited AKQJ with the J of Spades: Looks like there's only 3 of
them in the deck, and at a 1000 credit win. Now AAAA with a kicker.
Only one of them....but there's 12 kickers, @ a 2000 credit win! Now
what was that about having a brain and seeing WHAT???!!!!
  

> > > > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a

few

> hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be possible.
> > >
> > > You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind at
> > > ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement

between

> > > myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that

doesn't

do
> > it
> > > for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to
believe
> > me.
> > > I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over

me,

> > > because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could

someone

> > else
> > > POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me to
win
> > > against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
> > > being 'random'--which is only for their own self-

justification

> > > purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and
play
> > for
> > > ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!
> >
> > The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this information
he
> > would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go

back

a
> > year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS random.
>
> 1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum. You've
> seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that now.

So ???

Like I said. The old "inside info" con. ROTFLMAO. It is soooooo

good to see Robbie spilling his con. How sweet it is ...

I'm clear that you're envious on how someone other than you--a true
geek--could get any 'inside info' on your cursed habit, video poker,
before and/or instead of you! How can that possibly be? Answer: Who
are you??!! HAHAHA!!

>
> 2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the machines are

to

> be....only you can't read between the lines for its compatibility
to
> the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences.

It's random ... except it's not really random ... except it is
random ... except ... Need I say more. How sweet it is ...

You could have just said you're humbled and baffled at the same time
and saved yourself the embarrassment. I understand you haven't the
mental capacity to read and comprehend Gov't Contract Law. It's
alright little dicky. Mommy will wipe your tears later.....

> Education
> is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
> discussions. You've never been to the right class, so you'll

never get it.

I think we all "get it". Wink, wink. How sweet it is ...

No, I don't believe you did. Your lack of education on Contract Law
makes you look funny. And stupid. And I LIKE IT!!

>
> > > > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines
well
> > > enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say
> otherwise.
>
> > > If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you or
any
> > of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that. But
> right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards of

a

> thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.
>
> > Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes

those

> who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be

because

> one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?
>
> Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have said
> they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a solid
> lifetime loss playing that addictive way.

Lie. It doesn't get anymore obvious than this ...

Prove how obvious it is. With verifiable facts. Your nebulous,
incomplete way of showing you win is nothing more than a sack
of 'trust me's'. And BTW--haven't seen jim or anyone else for that
matter try to offer proof of winning. With all them 'advantage
players' out there, surely one or two would step up to the plate and
take a pitch from Singer now, wouldn't they.... Or do I detect one
big chicken coupe??

> > 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+ times
> at level 5.
>
> > > If you only know how much others who write me understand how
> > moronic you look over this one....When you come to understand
that
> not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is
> played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as
> stupid as you look.
>
> > Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back with
> another lie. How sweet it is ...
>
> ....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my site to
> verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes again!

We all know exactly WHY you came forward with this after giving
different results just a few weeks ago. To protect the CON. Sorry,
moron, but changing your tune in mid-stream after being caught in a
lie only makes you look worse.

I wonder why you didn't address the fact that my site has all the
rules on the strategies and they've been there and the same for 6
years. Hmmmm....Doesn't sound too promising for your weaseling around
now any more, does it...... Next time read them with understanding
and you won't look so weak when it comes to manipulating them for
your own agenda. Sorry----you've been CAUGHT again!

>
> > > > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > > > that by his own admission he knows very little about my
> actual strategy,
> > >
> > > > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect
than
> I guess we need to list that as lie 8).
> > >
> > > All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of

my

> > > strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to

perfectly

> > > comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you
could
> > take the easy way out and run with something that didn't take
much
> > effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.
> >
> > I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your
> strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).
>
> There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies

you're

> telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up a

meet

> next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse? Love to
> meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take notes

so

> you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to wiggle

your

> way out when you get caught wanting to make something up about my
> strategy that's not there.

Can we play tennis and bowl too? I'll be back in 3 weeks.

Yes--my foot is 100% better now after the treatments, and I'm jogging
again daily. No surgery required. $20,000 on each, and since you said
I would have been lucky if Fezzik didn't run away from me, I'll play
a one-time session for you. If I win $2500 you pay me $50,000. 1:1.
If I don't I'll pay YOU that amount. Let's see if you have the balls
to do what Fezzik couldn't--and for a lot less money. I'll take $90k
in cash as will you. We'll do it in whatever order you like. you can
have jim there as your witness or whomever you'd like. I'll have my
publisher. They can watch the cash.

>
> > > > and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel

good

> > about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'
> alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that

for

> obvious reasons work against how they're actually performed.
> > >
> > > > Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate
scenarios",
> > > > whatever that means.
> > >
> > > You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next

time,

> when facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more
> intelligent than you, try to get the facts before running wild

and

> scared. Then you won't have to look this stupid afterwards again.
> >
> > In one post Rob states I "admit" something and then turns right
> > around and agrees I didn't. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?
>
> I do I do! Little dicky's pattern of making things up about my
> strategy to fit his agenda, rather than to try to be accurate and
> take the hits as they come along.

LMAO. Which is it now, Robbie? Did I "admit" to it or not?

If you ever admit to saying anything it would be a miracle. Nerds
NEVER admit to anything. They have so little self-confidence and are
so afraid of their own shadows that they just don't make committals.

>
> > > > One would thin such a geek would take the time to

understand

> > > whatever they could if they were going to spend time running
> sims.
>
> > > >One would think Rob would have described them correctly.

Since

> I'm using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming that

HE

> doesn't understand his strategies.
>
> > > So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages on
this
> > > forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in

reporting'

> in school and at work all those years? You never asked about
anything-
>
> > Lie 11). I asked you several questions over several posts.
>
> Stop dancing around the issue. You did everything you could NOT

to

> meet with me for the accurate info. Your agenda problem is very
heavy.

Lie. Like I said before, neither you or I EVER discussed meeting

over

your strategy. Isn't it interesting that you would attempt to claim
the opposite ...

It's just like you to let this skip over your head. that's because
introverts readily dismiss chats about meeting to clarify facts.
You've always clearly wanted to use loose information instead of
facts. It's more adjustable and you can BS more about the output. You
keep getting caught--has the pattern caught up to you yet?

>
> > > only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come

back

at
> > you with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid
unless
> we spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire

scenario.

> >
> > Lie 12). You never said any such thing.
>
> Why not continue on with your lying when your dignity level has
sunk
> below the ground??

Come on, Robbie, show us a reference. Just one. You're making

youself

look like a complete fool. Of course, you ARE quite handy at doing
that. How sweet it is ...

That was brilliant. When faced with humiliation, claim the
perpetrator is lying just like you are. If you were any more
transparent we'd be looking at you with your pants down again. (and
not liking it AT ALL!!).

>
> > > You
> > > still don't understand anything because you don't want to,
which
> > > makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a

good

vp
> > > player.
> >
> > Lie 13). I simulated your strategy as accurately as possible
based
> on the information you provided. I did not want to you to have

any

> > escapes. I did exactly that.
>
> The only escape was you not desiring to do the right thing when

all

> you ever wanted was to run +=+ and -=-. Now I'm seeing you

walking

on
> eggshells over this, and that alone shows your guilt over it all.

RIV. Anyone can go back to Dec. and read our exchanges.

Be careful if you do! His eggshell pieces are everywhere.
  

> > > > Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and foremost

to

> > > eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie
about
> me wherever possible.
> > >
> > > > Just the facts, as usual.
> > >
> > > Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it
together
> > > about me.
> >
> > LMAO. Everyone knows EXACTLY what I meant.
>
> Including me. My compliments for getting it right for a change.

Thank you.

>
> > > > In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting
> caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No

one

> loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how

much

> fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be

able

> to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??
>
> > > > Rob must have run into some people who have been reading

this

> > forum and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily basis.
> > Obviously, that hasn't changed.
> > >
> > > Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??
>
> > RIV at his best. I think we can all assume Robbie lost his a**

in

> LV. He came back babbling the same insults over and over. A sure
sign
> > that he was very upset. How sweet it is ...
>
> Stuck for something to say, are we???

RIV.

RIP

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > More than ever these past few days---while I was once

again

> > > > absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've seen
> where
> > > > little dicky has been reduced to having to deal with 'that
old
> > > > empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and
logic.
> > > Cases
> > > > in point:
> > > >
> > > > > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success,
> fame,
> > > > > fearsome power or omnipotence"
> > > >
> > > > Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean

here....a

> > > stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it,
flaunt
> > it!"
> > >
> > > A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction.
I've
> > > actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved me
the
> > > effort. LMAO.
> >
> > HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on your
face!
> > That simple like you've led along with the boring one you do
> > now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing bozos
like
> > you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity,
> gravitational
> > effects, color, and geekiness!
>
> LMAO. Just a week ago Rob was trying to get everyone to believe

he

> was a god-fearing man. Claiming he would "pray" for me. Now, he
shows his degenerate side. Robbie, your frustration is clearly
showing everyone your true self.

I guess you'd call that the difference between living a boring grey-
area life----and living a vibrant one where experience in many

arenas

teaches.

I think that is a pretty good analysis. I have lived a "vibrant"
life.

You've been locked up in a nerd-room for work for years on
end, never going anywhere or doing anything but work.

Lie. I've been all over the country, to Mexico, Europe and Canada.
Just the fact you must lie about something this ordinary demonstrates
how little any of what you say can be trusted.

Now you've sunk
even lower into the doldrums of what to do during what were

supposed

to be the golden years of fun and enjoyment. I suppose you're too

far

into the dreaded downward spin of gambling to save the day anyway.
But I'll keep trying to help you little dicky. Insults,

embarrassment

and ridicule always help when you've got nowhere to go but up. And
I'mn just the guy to both pray for you and the missus to escape

from

your hell, and humiliate you at the same time! Oh what fun!!

Hey, if you're having fun making a fool out of yourself, don't let me
stop you.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing to
> > support
> > > > the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are
obviously
> > > > lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
> > > understanding,
> > > > he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them
> shills,
> > > > makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely
> > masterbates
> > > on
> > > > my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize

the

> > demons
> > > > that inhabit his world.
> > > >
> > > > > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation,
attention
> > and
> > > > > affirmation "
> > > >
> > > > Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've

shown

> > > towards
> > > > me!
> >
> > > > > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the

denyer,

> yet
> > > > whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his
claim,
> > he freezes in-place!
> > > >
> > > > > For starters:
> > > >
> > > > And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from here.....
> > > >
> > > > > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no
evidence
> > of this claim.
> > > >
> > > > Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little
experience
> > in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In

this

> > case, your 'evidence' is contained within the interpretations,
and
> > you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that
aren't
> > simple
> > B&W.
> > >
> > > LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC
> regulations
> > > relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations

relate

> to
> > > drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of us
has
> a
> > > contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I

can

> see
> > > it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have
dual
> > > meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.
> >
> > You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere
analogy,
> > didn't you little dicky....
>
> Nope ... both are factual examples of state mandated regulation

of

> licensees.

And obviously, none which you have any comprehension of whatsoever.

Just about everyone has a driver's lcense and understands EXACTLY
what I'm saying is true. The fact that you claim this is a lack
of "comprehension" pretty much says it all.

>
> > One would think that with all that
> > perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of
yours,
> > you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless without
their
> > being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your DL

is

a
> > signed contract with the state that you'll play according to

the

> > rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny piece

of

> > plastic you pull out as proof of rights.
>
> LMAO. Not a contract, little man ... a LICENSE where you agree to
> OBEY the rules and regulations.

Let me see.....A signed AGREEMENT (as little dicky says a DL is) is
NOT a contract! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right. A contract is an agreement between two parties where
BOTH parties have input. You know, just like I quoted to you
previously:

Main Entry: 1con·tract
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin contractus, from contrahere to
draw together, make a contract, reduce in size, from com- + trahere
to draw
1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties;
especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for
the supply of goods or services at a fixed price <make parts on

A license is a one-way street.

Main Entry: 1li·cense
Variant(s): or li·cence /'lI-s&n(t)s/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin
licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to be
permitted
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a
business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a
document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted

You do have an obsession with looking foolish. How sweet it is ...

EXACTLY the same as the casinos. Now,
> tell us how I can manipulate the driving regs. Robbie, you are
> looking about as idiotic as possible. But, hey, keep defending

your

> idiotic stance. How sweet it is ...

That's OK little dicky. As soon as you recover from my humiliating
you on the Contract issue, I'll give you time to spit out the

marbles

in your mouth before you continue on.

Now what little man? Once again, I'm right, you're wrong. How sweet
it is ...

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to
validate
> > his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.
> >
> > >I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when
making
> > > an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance,

squirm,

> and
> > > double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing

how

> to
> > > > proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate your
> > > > inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over

having

> to
> > > ask me how to handle it. I understand little dicky....truly,

I

do.
> > >
> > > Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide this
info?
> >
> > Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given names,
> > workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too

cheap

> (or
> > broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know the
truth
> > here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math
behind
> my
> > strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological

addiction

> to
> > play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a boring
geek
> > and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to get
their
> > fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here little
> dicky,
> > so be careful or I'll start charging you.
>
> Lie, you've provided NO verifiable information. We already know
> why ... you have none. Come on, just give us an email address and
> we're in business.

Workplaces, cities, names. You've had them for a looong time. As
we've already seen numerous times, you're simply AFRAID of

contacting

anyone or too broke to start. Use the phone. Use some of
that 'winning APer' money!

ROTFLMAO. I gave Robbie and another chance and you all saw the
results. Absolute silence. How sweet it is ...

PS. He's NEVER provided any addresses or phone numbers. Check the
archives.

>
> >
> > > > > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the BEST
> > > > simulation shows only 201 wins.
> >
> > > > Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to
your
> > > > neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other
than
> > > single
> > > > play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts before
> making
> > > > believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-

factual

> > sims,
> > > > and trying to be something that you're not.
> > >
> > > How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than
> willing
> > > to run a simulation for that number of sessions.
> >
> > I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit and
> discuss
> > every special play you don't want to understand so you can see

if

> you
> > have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll JUMP
at!
>
> Perfect answer ... if you are a con man. Just tell us the number

of

> sessions, is it that too tough of a question?

157---which you'll now apply YOU'RE agenda to the sim and continue

to

be afraid to meet me to discern anything at all about the 1700+
special plays that make the strategy what it is--a winner to the

tune

of 80%-90%. Go ahead. Keep looking dufusy. (Like that one?).

I wonder which orifice Robbie pulled that number from. Now that we've
all seen you lie about the last weekend alone, I don't think
simulating another lie is all that valuable ... But here it is
anyway.

seed = 45676476, 8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP 0.99166 10-6DDB
1.00067 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB 0.996946 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB 0.996946
8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033
Average hands at level 1 = 152 with 3 royals
Average hands at level 2 = 217 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 3 = 135 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 4 = 214 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 5 = 126 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 6 = 176 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 7 = 134 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 8 = 178 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 9 = 138 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 10 = 203 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 11 = 113 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 12 = 189 with 0 royals
Number of wins = 118 averaging 5873.432203
Number of losses = 39 averaging 26634.358974
Subgoal hits = 13.44586 Level resets = 7.299363 Level losses =
13.974523
Average wagered = 91054.044586 for payback of 97.581929 (-
2201.751592/session)
Expected payback = 99.533821 Total hands per session = 3213.178344
Average bet = 5.667538, CB per session at .2% = 182.108089

Exceeded expection 39 times and 100% 35 times, with CB 35 times (100)
Highest payback = 104.419951, lowest payback = 95.527607

>
> >
> > > > > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an

average

of
> > 52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.
> >
> > > > If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to
> produce
> > > it rather than operate under the thin cover of your

theoretical

> > > security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the

info

> > didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says a

lot

> > about the integrity level of someone like you.
> >
> > > Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was

using

> the
> > 1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions. When

I

> > > changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1 in
100
> > > ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.
> >
> > Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have the
right
> > input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally works.
Play
> > highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as played

on

> BP.
> > Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high
> denominational
> > level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand that
pays
> a
> > whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!
>
> ROTFLMAO. Another con man answer. You are doing my job for me
better
> than ever. Must be Jim's reference to you backing down with Fez

has

> you EVEN MORE frustrated.

How that is an answer to the input here is a wonder only a nerd's
mother could understand.....

You must not have read the next paragraph. Everyone else understands
that naming a big hand in one game which is not a big hand in another
is pure con man BS.

But I continue to enjoy the reference
to jim, fezzik, & this or that guy. It simply shows I've taken on

the

world and no matter how many bozos line up to face me or how many

try

to at one time and where, every one has always been knocked down

(and

some out). I always prevail--as you so painfully have been taught.
But don't boil over here. Keep alert! I've got more eye-openers for
you down the road!

And even more con man BS. How sweet it is ...

>
> PS. The hand AKQJ suited in diamonds with the Jack of spades pays
> $5000 on OEJs. What does it pay on DDB? I'll make it easy for
you ... 5 credits ($25) ... a push. Do you actually think anyone

with

a brain doesn't see how stupid your comparison is?

HAHAHA! One-Eyed-Jacks?? NOBODY plays that game, and if you do then
you're NOBODY! (Duh....I already knew that).

So, my little example that PROVEs all you do is babble con man BS
constantly got to you. How sweet it is ...

So now let's do some of
your geek-math you so heavily rely upon when you are at a loss for
words. Suited AKQJ with the J of Spades: Looks like there's only 3

of

them in the deck, and at a 1000 credit win. Now AAAA with a kicker.
Only one of them....but there's 12 kickers, @ a 2000 credit win!

Now

what was that about having a brain and seeing WHAT???!!!!

ROTFLMAO. Sorry to make you look foolish once again little Robbie.
While there are 12 combinations of AAAA/kicker, there are 50
combinations of WRFs in OEJs. And, 1000*50 > 2000*12 ... so those
with a "brain" can all see that you will be dealt many MORE of these
big winners playing OEJs than you would playing DDB. What's even more
hilarious is Robbie stuck his foot completely in his mouth by
vomiting up the "having a brain" statement.

Of course, he completely failed to respond to the fact that none of
this matters. Different games have different paybacks for different
hands. I was simply proving his statement was con man BS. Now, Rob
continues to prove it for me. How sweet it is ...

> > > > > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and a
few
> > hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be

possible.

> > > >
> > > > You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your mind

at

> > > > ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement
between
> > > > myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that
doesn't
> do
> > > it
> > > > for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to
> believe
> > > me.
> > > > I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him over
me,
> > > > because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could
someone
> > > else
> > > > POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows me

to

> win
> > > > against the stupid belief that AP's have over the machines
> > > > being 'random'--which is only for their own self-
justification
> > > > purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time and
> play
> > > for
> > > > ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!
> > >
> > > The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this

information

> he
> > > would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go
back
> a
> > > year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS random.
> >
> > 1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum.

You've

> > seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that now.
So ???
>
> Like I said. The old "inside info" con. ROTFLMAO. It is soooooo
good to see Robbie spilling his con. How sweet it is ...

I'm clear that you're envious on how someone other than you--a true
geek--could get any 'inside info' on your cursed habit, video

poker,

before and/or instead of you! How can that possibly be? Answer: Who
are you??!! HAHAHA!!

I have all the inside info that anyone could need. An understanding
of the math and the ability to read the simple regulations that apply
to VP. Only someone perpetrating a con would claim otherwise.

>
> >
> > 2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the machines

are

to
> > be....only you can't read between the lines for its

compatibility

> to
> > the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences.
>
> It's random ... except it's not really random ... except it is
> random ... except ... Need I say more. How sweet it is ...

You could have just said you're humbled and baffled at the same

time

and saved yourself the embarrassment. I understand you haven't the
mental capacity to read and comprehend Gov't Contract Law. It's
alright little dicky. Mommy will wipe your tears later.....

LMAO. You're swimming upstream here. I've already proved beyond any
shadow of a doubt that there are no contracts involved and that is
all part of your lying con. How sweet it is ...

> > Education
> > is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
> > discussions. You've never been to the right class, so you'll
never get it.

> I think we all "get it". Wink, wink. How sweet it is ...

No, I don't believe you did. Your lack of education on Contract Law
makes you look funny. And stupid. And I LIKE IT!!

LMAO. Wink, wink.

>
> >
> > > > > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play machines
> well
> > > > enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say
> > otherwise.
> >
> > > > If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that you

or

> any
> > > of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that.

But

> > right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe upwards

of

a
> > thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.
> >
> > > Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes
those
> > who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be
because
> > one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?
> >
> > Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have

said

> > they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a solid
> > lifetime loss playing that addictive way.
>
> Lie. It doesn't get anymore obvious than this ...

Prove how obvious it is. With verifiable facts. Your nebulous,
incomplete way of showing you win is nothing more than a sack
of 'trust me's'.

And several hundred (or thousand) others ... Your lies can't change
this obvious truth.

And BTW--haven't seen jim or anyone else for that
matter try to offer proof of winning.

I did. You declined. What more can I do? Add to that that Robbie
backed down from the bet with Fez and I think most reasonable people
will get the picture.

With all them 'advantage
players' out there, surely one or two would step up to the plate

and

take a pitch from Singer now, wouldn't they.... Or do I detect one
big chicken coupe??

Yup, you were the chicken. How sweet it is ...

> > > 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+

times

> > at level 5.
> >
> > > > If you only know how much others who write me understand

how

> > > moronic you look over this one....When you come to understand
> that
> > not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25 level is
> > played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel as
> > stupid as you look.
> >
> > > Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back with
> > another lie. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > ....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my site

to

> > verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes again!
>
> We all know exactly WHY you came forward with this after giving
> different results just a few weeks ago. To protect the CON.

Sorry,

> moron, but changing your tune in mid-stream after being caught in

a

> lie only makes you look worse.

I wonder why you didn't address the fact that my site has all the
rules on the strategies and they've been there and the same for 6
years. Hmmmm....Doesn't sound too promising for your weaseling

around

now any more, does it...... Next time read them with understanding
and you won't look so weak when it comes to manipulating them for
your own agenda. Sorry----you've been CAUGHT again!

I can only go by what you say here. You change your story more often
than the weather changes. How sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > > > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > > > > that by his own admission he knows very little about my
> > actual strategy,
> > > >
> > > > > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was incorrect
> than
> > I guess we need to list that as lie 8).
> > > >
> > > > All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding of
my
> > > > strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to
perfectly
> > > > comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so you
> could
> > > take the easy way out and run with something that didn't take
> much
> > > effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.
> > >
> > > I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your
> > strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).
> >
> > There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies
you're
> > telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up a
meet
> > next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse? Love

to

> > meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take

notes

so
> > you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to wiggle
your
> > way out when you get caught wanting to make something up about

my

> > strategy that's not there.
>
> Can we play tennis and bowl too? I'll be back in 3 weeks.

Yes--my foot is 100% better now after the treatments, and I'm

jogging

again daily. No surgery required. $20,000 on each,

LMAO. You stated last time it would be for NO money. Now, you come
back with 20K each. Does your GT publisher know about this? We all
know you'll back down anyway. So ... I accept. Best 4-7 sets in
tennis and best total pins over 10 games at bowling.
  

> > > > > and cooperates only to the extent that it makes him feel
good
> > > about his assumptions. Further, he admits having to 'create'
> > alternate scenarios about my very clear written strategy that
for
> > obvious reasons work against how they're actually performed.
> > > >
> > > > > Lie 9). I haven't "admit"ed creating any "alternate
> scenarios",
> > > > > whatever that means.
> > > >
> > > > You do it even when you don't know you're doing it. Next
time,
> > when facing up against someone more knowledgeable and more
> > intelligent than you, try to get the facts before running wild
and
> > scared. Then you won't have to look this stupid afterwards

again.

> > >
> > > In one post Rob states I "admit" something and then turns

right

> > > around and agrees I didn't. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?
> >
> > I do I do! Little dicky's pattern of making things up about my
> > strategy to fit his agenda, rather than to try to be accurate

and

> > take the hits as they come along.
>
> LMAO. Which is it now, Robbie? Did I "admit" to it or not?

If you ever admit to saying anything it would be a miracle. Nerds
NEVER admit to anything. They have so little self-confidence and

are

so afraid of their own shadows that they just don't make committals.

Keep backtracking. How sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > > > One would thin such a geek would take the time to
understand
> > > > whatever they could if they were going to spend time

running

> > sims.
> >
> > > > >One would think Rob would have described them correctly.
Since
> > I'm using his OWN descriptions it seems like he is claiming

that

HE
> > doesn't understand his strategies.
> >
> > > > So 'understanding the strategy' equates to a few messages

on

> this
> > > > forum? Is that what they taught you for 'accuracy in
reporting'
> > in school and at work all those years? You never asked about
> anything-
> >
> > > Lie 11). I asked you several questions over several posts.
> >
> > Stop dancing around the issue. You did everything you could NOT
to
> > meet with me for the accurate info. Your agenda problem is very
> heavy.
>
> Lie. Like I said before, neither you or I EVER discussed meeting
over
> your strategy. Isn't it interesting that you would attempt to

claim

> the opposite ...

It's just like you to let this skip over your head. that's because
introverts readily dismiss chats about meeting to clarify facts.

Come on ... show us all when it occurred. Since we've never met in
person it must be in the archives. Let's see it ...

> > > > only made a few dumb comments that you hoped I'd not come
back
> at
> > > you with but i did. I told you it would make you look stupid
> unless
> > we spent at least 4 hours in person going over the entire
scenario.
> > >
> > > Lie 12). You never said any such thing.
> >
> > Why not continue on with your lying when your dignity level has
> sunk
> > below the ground??
>
> Come on, Robbie, show us a reference. Just one. You're making
youself
> look like a complete fool. Of course, you ARE quite handy at

doing

> that. How sweet it is ...

That was brilliant. When faced with humiliation, claim the
perpetrator is lying just like you are. If you were any more
transparent we'd be looking at you with your pants down again. (and
not liking it AT ALL!!).

LMAO. Robbie gets caught in another lie. How sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > > You
> > > > still don't understand anything because you don't want to,
> which
> > > > makes me believe you are just as fake a nerd as you are a
good
> vp
> > > > player.
> > >
> > > Lie 13). I simulated your strategy as accurately as possible
> based
> > on the information you provided. I did not want to you to have
any
> > > escapes. I did exactly that.
> >
> > The only escape was you not desiring to do the right thing when
all
> > you ever wanted was to run +=+ and -=-. Now I'm seeing you
walking
> on
> > eggshells over this, and that alone shows your guilt over it

all.

>
> RIV. Anyone can go back to Dec. and read our exchanges.

Be careful if you do! His eggshell pieces are everywhere.

RIV. They're all in the archives. LOL.

> > > > > Not so with little dicky. His agenda is first and

foremost

to
> > > > eliminate the whining he gets caught doing....then, to lie
> about
> > me wherever possible.
> > > >
> > > > > Just the facts, as usual.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. Once in a great while you do seem to have it
> together
> > > > about me.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Everyone knows EXACTLY what I meant.
> >
> > Including me. My compliments for getting it right for a change.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >
> > > > > In short, he is a sore loser who is very tired of getting
> > caught with his pants down and 'with his dick in his hand'. No
one
> > loves a nerd more than me for obvious reasons. After all, how
much
> > fun is it to be able to slap a nerd and make them cry--then be
able
> > to do it again and again as they beg for mercy??
> >
> > > > > Rob must have run into some people who have been reading
this
> > > forum and they told him how foolish he looks on a daily

basis.

> > > Obviously, that hasn't changed.
> > > >
> > > > Ya didn't really say much there, now didya??
> >
> > > RIV at his best. I think we can all assume Robbie lost his

a**

in
> > LV. He came back babbling the same insults over and over. A

sure

> sign
> > > that he was very upset. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > Stuck for something to say, are we???
>
> RIV.

RIP

Rob's Inner Pest.

···

Date: 14th century
Date: 14th century

[Rob_Singer1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > > > More than ever these past few days---while I was once
again
> > > > > absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've

seen

> > where
> > > > > little dicky has been reduced to having to deal

with 'that

> old
> > > > > empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and
> logic.
> > > > Cases
> > > > > in point:
> > > > >
> > > > > > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited

success,

> > fame,
> > > > > > fearsome power or omnipotence"
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean
here....a
> > > > stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it,
> flaunt
> > > it!"
> > > >
> > > > A high percentage of strippers have an attention addiction.
> I've
> > > > actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You saved

me

> the
> > > > effort. LMAO.
> > >
> > > HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on your
> face!
> > > That simple like you've led along with the boring one you do
> > > now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing

bozos

> like
> > > you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity,
> > gravitational
> > > effects, color, and geekiness!
> >
> > LMAO. Just a week ago Rob was trying to get everyone to believe
he
> > was a god-fearing man. Claiming he would "pray" for me. Now, he
> shows his degenerate side. Robbie, your frustration is clearly
> showing everyone your true self.
>
> I guess you'd call that the difference between living a boring

grey-

> area life----and living a vibrant one where experience in many
arenas
> teaches.

I think that is a pretty good analysis. I have lived a "vibrant"
life.

Yeah RIGHT!!

> You've been locked up in a nerd-room for work for years on
> end, never going anywhere or doing anything but work.

Lie. I've been all over the country, to Mexico, Europe and Canada.
Just the fact you must lie about something this ordinary

demonstrates how little any of what you say can be trusted.

You've been nowhere, and you're articulation shows it. Oh, I take
that back---MEXICO!! Ole'!! Now that's more your style. I believe
you've gone to that cesspool country since you hang out in cesspool
casinos all day.

> Now you've sunk
> even lower into the doldrums of what to do during what were
supposed
> to be the golden years of fun and enjoyment. I suppose you're too
far
> into the dreaded downward spin of gambling to save the day

anyway.

> But I'll keep trying to help you little dicky. Insults,
embarrassment
> and ridicule always help when you've got nowhere to go but up.

And

> I'm just the guy to both pray for you and the missus to escape
from
> your hell, and humiliate you at the same time! Oh what fun!!

Hey, if you're having fun making a fool out of yourself, don't let

me stop you.

Our Father, who art in Heaven, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be
done...... It's all for you little dicky---ALL for YOU!

> > > > > > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is willing

to

> > > support
> > > > > the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are
> obviously
> > > > > lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls them
> > shills,
> > > > > makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely
> > > masterbates
> > > > on
> > > > > my book hoping that this in some geeky way will exercize
the
> > > demons
> > > > > that inhabit his world.
> > > > >
> > > > > > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation,
> attention
> > > and
> > > > > > affirmation "
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've
shown
> > > > towards
> > > > > me!
> > >
> > > > > > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the
denyer,
> > yet
> > > > > whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify his
> claim,
> > > he freezes in-place!
> > > > >
> > > > > > For starters:
> > > > >
> > > > > And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from

here.....

> > > > >
> > > > > > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no
> evidence
> > > of this claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little
> experience
> > > in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In
this
> > > case, your 'evidence' is contained within the

interpretations,

> and
> > > you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings that
> aren't
> > > simple
> > > B&W.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC
> > regulations
> > > > relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations
relate
> > to
> > > > drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one of

us

> has
> > a
> > > > contract with the state when we get our driver's license. I
can
> > see
> > > > it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs have
> dual
> > > > meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A LIE.
> > >
> > > You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere
> analogy,
> > > didn't you little dicky....
> >
> > Nope ... both are factual examples of state mandated regulation
of
> > licensees.
>
> And obviously, none which you have any comprehension of

whatsoever.

Just about everyone has a driver's lcense and understands EXACTLY
what I'm saying is true. The fact that you claim this is a lack
of "comprehension" pretty much says it all.

The 'ol "I think everybody else is on my side so I'll feel
comfortable saying this baloney again" routine, hey? HAHAHA!! When
you do that is one of your funniest acts.

> >
> > > One would think that with all that
> > > perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of
> yours,
> > > you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless without
> their
> > > being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your DL
is
> a
> > > signed contract with the state that you'll play according to
the
> > > rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny piece
of
> > > plastic you pull out as proof of rights.
> >
> > LMAO. Not a contract, little man ... a LICENSE where you agree

to

> > OBEY the rules and regulations.
>
> Let me see.....A signed AGREEMENT (as little dicky says a DL is)

is

> NOT a contract! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right. A contract is an agreement between two parties where
BOTH parties have input. You know, just like I quoted to you
previously:

Main Entry: 1con·tract
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin contractus, from contrahere

to

draw together, make a contract, reduce in size, from com- + trahere
to draw
Date: 14th century
1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties;
especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for
the supply of goods or services at a fixed price <make parts on
>

A license is a one-way street.

Main Entry: 1li·cense
Variant(s): or li·cence /'lI-s&n(t)s/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin
licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to be
permitted
Date: 14th century
1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a
business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a
document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted

You do have an obsession with looking foolish. How sweet it is ...

You certainly know how to waste your time! All you're doing is
showing you have no knowledge of the subject and feel more comfy
looking it all up and spinning your own translations!! How do I
deserve to keep beating on such a nerd??! You don't 'think' you have
any input to the Contract between you and the state on a DL? Maybe
not, because nerds think they know everything going in (which is why
spanking them when they find out they're wrong afterwards is so much
fun). Have you taken a DRIVING TEST to prove you can drive? Have you
taken a WRITTEN TEST to prove you comprehend regulations? Have you
SIGNED anything attesting to your identification and
understandings??? THAT'S what a Contract is all about little dicky. A
DL is a priviledge that you must contract for and is not a right.
(Oh, I'm getting a woody making you look so dumb!)!

>
> EXACTLY the same as the casinos. Now,
> > tell us how I can manipulate the driving regs. Robbie, you are
> > looking about as idiotic as possible. But, hey, keep defending
your
> > idiotic stance. How sweet it is ...
>
> That's OK little dicky. As soon as you recover from my

humiliating

> you on the Contract issue, I'll give you time to spit out the
marbles
> in your mouth before you continue on.

Now what little man? Once again, I'm right, you're wrong. How sweet
it is ...

Sorry Charlie.....I had to do it to you yet again!

> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to
> validate
> > > his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.
> > >
> > > >I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist when
> making
> > > > an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance,
squirm,
> > and
> > > > double-talk your way around the issue by not really knowing
how
> > to
> > > > > proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate

your

> > > > > inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over
having
> > to
> > > > ask me how to handle it. I understand little

dicky....truly,

I
> do.
> > > >
> > > > Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide

this

> info?
> > >
> > > Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given

names,

> > > workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too
cheap
> > (or
> > > broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know the
> truth
> > > here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math
> behind
> > my
> > > strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological
addiction
> > to
> > > play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a boring
> geek
> > > and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to get
> their
> > > fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here little
> > dicky,
> > > so be careful or I'll start charging you.
> >
> > Lie, you've provided NO verifiable information. We already know
> > why ... you have none. Come on, just give us an email address

and

> > we're in business.
>
> Workplaces, cities, names. You've had them for a looong time. As
> we've already seen numerous times, you're simply AFRAID of
contacting
> anyone or too broke to start. Use the phone. Use some of
> that 'winning APer' money!

ROTFLMAO. I gave Robbie and another chance and you all saw the
results. Absolute silence. How sweet it is ...

PS. He's NEVER provided any addresses or phone numbers. Check the
archives.

What? No archive posting here? You're slipping up....or are you too
afraid because you know I'm right and you can't afford to make the
calls!

> >
> > >
> > > > > > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the

BEST

> > > > > simulation shows only 201 wins.
> > >
> > > > > Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary to
> your
> > > > > neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on other
> than
> > > > single
> > > > > play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts

before

> > making
> > > > > believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-
factual
> > > sims,
> > > > > and trying to be something that you're not.
> > > >
> > > > How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more than
> > willing
> > > > to run a simulation for that number of sessions.
> > >
> > > I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit and
> > discuss
> > > every special play you don't want to understand so you can

see

if
> > you
> > > have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll

JUMP

> at!
> >
> > Perfect answer ... if you are a con man. Just tell us the

number

of
> > sessions, is it that too tough of a question?
>
> 157---which you'll now apply YOU'RE agenda to the sim and

continue

to
> be afraid to meet me to discern anything at all about the 1700+
> special plays that make the strategy what it is--a winner to the
tune
> of 80%-90%. Go ahead. Keep looking dufusy. (Like that one?).

I wonder which orifice Robbie pulled that number from. Now that

we've

all seen you lie about the last weekend alone, I don't think
simulating another lie is all that valuable ... But here it is
anyway.

seed = 45676476, 8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP 0.99166 10-

6DDB

1.00067 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB 0.996946 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB

0.996946

8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033
Average hands at level 1 = 152 with 3 royals
Average hands at level 2 = 217 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 3 = 135 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 4 = 214 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 5 = 126 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 6 = 176 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 7 = 134 with 1 royals
Average hands at level 8 = 178 with 2 royals
Average hands at level 9 = 138 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 10 = 203 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 11 = 113 with 0 royals
Average hands at level 12 = 189 with 0 royals
Number of wins = 118 averaging 5873.432203
Number of losses = 39 averaging 26634.358974
Subgoal hits = 13.44586 Level resets = 7.299363 Level losses =
13.974523
Average wagered = 91054.044586 for payback of 97.581929 (-
2201.751592/session)
Expected payback = 99.533821 Total hands per session = 3213.178344
Average bet = 5.667538, CB per session at .2% = 182.108089

Exceeded expection 39 times and 100% 35 times, with CB 35 times

(100)

Highest payback = 104.419951, lowest payback = 95.527607

I do get you to react any which way I'd like.......

> > >
> > > > > > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an
average
> of
> > > 52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.
> > >
> > > > > If you have proof that I lied here then you might want to
> > produce
> > > > it rather than operate under the thin cover of your
theoretical
> > > > security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the
info
> > > didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says a
lot
> > > about the integrity level of someone like you.
> > >
> > > > Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was
using
> > the
> > > 1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions.

When

I
> > > > changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a 1

in

> 100
> > > > ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.
> > >
> > > Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have the
> right
> > > input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally

works.

> Play
> > > highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as

played

on
> > BP.
> > > Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high
> > denominational
> > > level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand

that

> pays
> > a
> > > whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. Another con man answer. You are doing my job for me
> better
> > than ever. Must be Jim's reference to you backing down with Fez
has
> > you EVEN MORE frustrated.
>
> How that is an answer to the input here is a wonder only a nerd's
> mother could understand.....

You must not have read the next paragraph. Everyone else

understands

that naming a big hand in one game which is not a big hand in

another

is pure con man BS.

Huh? Now you're resorting to incomparable analogies!

> But I continue to enjoy the reference
> to jim, fezzik, & this or that guy. It simply shows I've taken on
the
> world and no matter how many bozos line up to face me or how many
try
> to at one time and where, every one has always been knocked down
(and
> some out). I always prevail--as you so painfully have been

taught.

> But don't boil over here. Keep alert! I've got more eye-openers

for

> you down the road!

And even more con man BS. How sweet it is ...

Nothing to respond with....I LOVE it!

> >
> > PS. The hand AKQJ suited in diamonds with the Jack of spades

pays

> > $5000 on OEJs. What does it pay on DDB? I'll make it easy for
> you ... 5 credits ($25) ... a push. Do you actually think anyone
with
> a brain doesn't see how stupid your comparison is?
>
> HAHAHA! One-Eyed-Jacks?? NOBODY plays that game, and if you do

then

> you're NOBODY! (Duh....I already knew that).

So, my little example that PROVEs all you do is babble con man BS
constantly got to you. How sweet it is ...

You got THAT out of my ridiculing you for playing that weiner game??

> So now let's do some of
> your geek-math you so heavily rely upon when you are at a loss

for

> words. Suited AKQJ with the J of Spades: Looks like there's only

3

of
> them in the deck, and at a 1000 credit win. Now AAAA with a

kicker.

> Only one of them....but there's 12 kickers, @ a 2000 credit win!
Now
> what was that about having a brain and seeing WHAT???!!!!

ROTFLMAO. Sorry to make you look foolish once again little Robbie.
While there are 12 combinations of AAAA/kicker, there are 50
combinations of WRFs in OEJs. And, 1000*50 > 2000*12 ... so those
with a "brain" can all see that you will be dealt many MORE of

these

big winners playing OEJs than you would playing DDB. What's even

more

hilarious is Robbie stuck his foot completely in his mouth by
vomiting up the "having a brain" statement.

Bozo, re-read what you said. "A suited AKQJ with the J of SPADES pays
1000". That constitutes THREE, not FIFTY. Having trouble reading
this, aren't you.... However, in the likely event that you simply
were rattled by me again and were ONCE AGAIN incomplete in a
response, then why wouldn't you compare the high-end hands of OEJ to
the high-end hands od DDB?? Now don't tell me the cat's got your
tongue on this one.

Of course, he completely failed to respond to the fact that none of
this matters. Different games have different paybacks for different
hands. I was simply proving his statement was con man BS. Now, Rob
continues to prove it for me. How sweet it is ...

More ramble....and more egg on the face for little dicky. I wouldn't
be surprised if he left out a fact or two in that one either.

>
> > > > > > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles and

a

> few
> > > hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be
possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your

mind

at
> > > > > ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement
> between
> > > > > myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that
> doesn't
> > do
> > > > it
> > > > > for poor little dicky then he has no option other than to
> > believe
> > > > me.
> > > > > I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him

over

> me,
> > > > > because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could
> someone
> > > > else
> > > > > POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows

me

to
> > win
> > > > > against the stupid belief that AP's have over the

machines

> > > > > being 'random'--which is only for their own self-
> justification
> > > > > purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time

and

> > play
> > > > for
> > > > > ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!
> > > >
> > > > The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this
information
> > he
> > > > would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you go
> back
> > a
> > > > year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS

random.

> > >
> > > 1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum.
You've
> > > seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that now.
> So ???
> >
> > Like I said. The old "inside info" con. ROTFLMAO. It is soooooo
> good to see Robbie spilling his con. How sweet it is ...
>
> I'm clear that you're envious on how someone other than you--a

true

> geek--could get any 'inside info' on your cursed habit, video
poker,
> before and/or instead of you! How can that possibly be? Answer:

Who

> are you??!! HAHAHA!!

I have all the inside info that anyone could need. An understanding
of the math and the ability to read the simple regulations that

apply

to VP. Only someone perpetrating a con would claim otherwise.

You have 'it all' allright! Too bad it's nothing but a geek past!

> >
> > >
> > > 2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the machines
are
> to
> > > be....only you can't read between the lines for its
compatibility
> > to
> > > the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences.
> >
> > It's random ... except it's not really random ... except it is
> > random ... except ... Need I say more. How sweet it is ...
>
> You could have just said you're humbled and baffled at the same
time
> and saved yourself the embarrassment. I understand you haven't

the

> mental capacity to read and comprehend Gov't Contract Law. It's
> alright little dicky. Mommy will wipe your tears later.....

LMAO. You're swimming upstream here. I've already proved beyond any
shadow of a doubt that there are no contracts involved and that is
all part of your lying con. How sweet it is ...

Why do you think this thread has "I want my Mommy" in it for you??
It's all right there--a wordy cover-up for your lack of knowledge on
what a contract is comprised of.

>
> > > Education
> > > is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
> > > discussions. You've never been to the right class, so you'll
> never get it.
>
> > I think we all "get it". Wink, wink. How sweet it is ...
>
> No, I don't believe you did. Your lack of education on Contract

Law

> makes you look funny. And stupid. And I LIKE IT!!

LMAO. Wink, wink.

> >
> > >
> > > > > > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play

machines

> > well
> > > > > enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers say
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > > > > If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that

you

or
> > any
> > > > of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to that.
But
> > > right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe

upwards

of
> a
> > > thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.
> > >
> > > > Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only believes
> those
> > > who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be
> because
> > > one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?
> > >
> > > Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have
said
> > > they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a

solid

> > > lifetime loss playing that addictive way.
> >
> > Lie. It doesn't get anymore obvious than this ...
>
> Prove how obvious it is. With verifiable facts. Your nebulous,
> incomplete way of showing you win is nothing more than a sack
> of 'trust me's'.

And several hundred (or thousand) others ... Your lies can't change
this obvious truth.

Imagine if I required you to PROVE that! Or at least produce the e-
mails atresting to this!! (It just keeps getting better, doesn't
it!!?)!

> And BTW--haven't seen jim or anyone else for that
> matter try to offer proof of winning.

I did. You declined. What more can I do? Add to that that Robbie
backed down from the bet with Fez and I think most reasonable

people will get the picture.

Did you get it yet? "Trust me's" have no more value than IOU's in
this world. Good thing I didn't publish the same nonsense you do in
my GT article! You'd have had your best day--I would have been fired
for printing baloney!

> With all them 'advantage
> players' out there, surely one or two would step up to the plate
and
> take a pitch from Singer now, wouldn't they.... Or do I detect

one

> big chicken coupe??

Yup, you were the chicken. How sweet it is ...

??? Is Pee Wee the only reply?

>
> > > > 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+
times
> > > at level 5.
> > >
> > > > > If you only know how much others who write me understand
how
> > > > moronic you look over this one....When you come to

understand

> > that
> > > not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25 level

is

> > > played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll feel

as

> > > stupid as you look.
> > >
> > > > Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back

with

> > > another lie. How sweet it is ...
> > >
> > > ....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my site
to
> > > verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes

again!

> >
> > We all know exactly WHY you came forward with this after giving
> > different results just a few weeks ago. To protect the CON.
Sorry,
> > moron, but changing your tune in mid-stream after being caught

in

a
> > lie only makes you look worse.
>
> I wonder why you didn't address the fact that my site has all the
> rules on the strategies and they've been there and the same for 6
> years. Hmmmm....Doesn't sound too promising for your weaseling
around
> now any more, does it...... Next time read them with

understanding

> and you won't look so weak when it comes to manipulating them for
> your own agenda. Sorry----you've been CAUGHT again!

I can only go by what you say here. You change your story more

often

than the weather changes. How sweet it is ...

"I can only go by what you say here".....should I cry now or wait
until the cows come home milkless?? A true geek understands what he
reads on the Internet, and follows thru with adequate questions when
in doubt. Know what a true geek is little dicky??

> >
> > >
> > > > > > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > > > > > that by his own admission he knows very little about

my

> > > actual strategy,
> > > > >
> > > > > > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was

incorrect

> > than
> > > I guess we need to list that as lie 8).
> > > > >
> > > > > All you've ever want to do is grab a loose understanding

of

> my
> > > > > strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to
> perfectly
> > > > > comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so

you

> > could
> > > > take the easy way out and run with something that didn't

take

> > much
> > > > effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.
> > > >
> > > > I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss your
> > > strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).
> > >
> > > There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies
> you're
> > > telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up a
> meet
> > > next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse?

Love

to
> > > meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take
notes
> so
> > > you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to wiggle
> your
> > > way out when you get caught wanting to make something up

about

my
> > > strategy that's not there.
> >
> > Can we play tennis and bowl too? I'll be back in 3 weeks.
>
> Yes--my foot is 100% better now after the treatments, and I'm
jogging
> again daily. No surgery required. $20,000 on each,

LMAO. You stated last time it would be for NO money. Now, you come
back with 20K each. Does your GT publisher know about this?

Nope--and there won't be an article on it. They don't like to give
attention to people like Fezzik or nobody's like you. Since he ran
twice they're not interested in printing any betting info any longer.
My superiority has been established and they've seen what they needed
to for verification.

We all

know you'll back down anyway. So ... I accept. Best 4-7 sets in
tennis and best total pins over 10 games at bowling.

No backing down----on the ENTIRE proposal. Where's the MAN in you.
Certainly you can find him SOMEWHERE!! You're always crying about my
not winning--ONE session for real money--$50k. Isn't it a big
surprise that you deleted that part. So are you in or out of the
chicken coupe??

1. Tennis for $20k, best of 7.
2. Bowling (I'm almost embarrassed, but I'll practice this week--
that's all it'll take because of my superior body and mind) for $20k,
best score over 10 games.
3. One RS system play, max 6-levels, if $2500 goal is attaned I win
your $50k. If not, you win mine.

Show you're a man instead of a geek. Talk or walk. Which is it.
Entire package or nothing. Afraid little dicky?? I can't WAIT to hear
the squirming and weaseling here!!

···

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

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > > > > More than ever these past few days---while I was once
> again
> > > > > > absolutely DOMINATING the vp world in Las Vegas---I've
seen
> > > where
> > > > > > little dicky has been reduced to having to deal
with 'that
> > old
> > > > > > empty feeling' as he tries to keep up with my truth and
> > logic.
> > > > > Cases
> > > > > > in point:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > NPD(2): "Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited
success,
> > > fame,
> > > > > > > fearsome power or omnipotence"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Knowing you'll have absolutely NO idea what I mean
> here....a
> > > > > stripper at the Rhino once said to me: "If you've got it,
> > flaunt
> > > > it!"
> > > > >
> > > > > A high percentage of strippers have an attention

addiction.

> > I've
> > > > > actually considered comparing you to a stripper. You

saved

me
> > the
> > > > > effort. LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > HAHA!! You wouldn't know a stripper if she lap-danced on

your

> > face!
> > > > That simple like you've led along with the boring one you

do

> > > > now.....leaves falling are what stimulate nobody-nothing
bozos
> > like
> > > > you to the max. They've got it all----grace, velocity,
> > > gravitational
> > > > effects, color, and geekiness!
> > >
> > > LMAO. Just a week ago Rob was trying to get everyone to

believe

> he
> > > was a god-fearing man. Claiming he would "pray" for me. Now,

he

> > shows his degenerate side. Robbie, your frustration is clearly
> > showing everyone your true self.
> >
> > I guess you'd call that the difference between living a boring
grey-
> > area life----and living a vibrant one where experience in many
> arenas
> > teaches.
>
> I think that is a pretty good analysis. I have lived a "vibrant"
> life.

Yeah RIGHT!!

At least you finally admit it.

>
> > You've been locked up in a nerd-room for work for years on
> > end, never going anywhere or doing anything but work.
>
> Lie. I've been all over the country, to Mexico, Europe and

Canada.

> Just the fact you must lie about something this ordinary
demonstrates how little any of what you say can be trusted.

You've been nowhere, and you're articulation shows it. Oh, I take
that back---MEXICO!! Ole'!! Now that's more your style. I believe
you've gone to that cesspool country since you hang out in cesspool
casinos all day.

I see you're trying to change the subject. Good idea since your
looking like a jealous fool.

>
> > Now you've sunk
> > even lower into the doldrums of what to do during what were
> supposed
> > to be the golden years of fun and enjoyment. I suppose you're

too

> far
> > into the dreaded downward spin of gambling to save the day
anyway.
> > But I'll keep trying to help you little dicky. Insults,
> embarrassment
> > and ridicule always help when you've got nowhere to go but up.
And
> > I'm just the guy to both pray for you and the missus to escape
> from
> > your hell, and humiliate you at the same time! Oh what fun!!
>
> Hey, if you're having fun making a fool out of yourself, don't

let

me stop you.

Our Father, who art in Heaven, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be
done...... It's all for you little dicky---ALL for YOU!

He can't help himself. He really is this stupid. You gotta love it ...

> > > > > > > 1. He continually claims there's no one who is

willing

to
> > > > support
> > > > > > the strengths I bring to the game that the gurus are
> > obviously
> > > > > > lacking, yet whenever anyone comes on with any type of
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > he gets sooo irritated and frustrated that he calls

them

> > > shills,
> > > > > > makes believe they're me, or more expectedly he likely
> > > > masterbates
> > > > > on
> > > > > > my book hoping that this in some geeky way will

exercize

> the
> > > > demons
> > > > > > that inhabit his world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > NPD(4): "Requires excessive admiration, adulation,
> > attention
> > > > and
> > > > > > > affirmation "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Funny....those seem oddly similar to the traits you've
> shown
> > > > > towards
> > > > > > me!
> > > >
> > > > > > > 2. No one has ever called me a 'liar' more than the
> denyer,
> > > yet
> > > > > > whenever anyone challenges him to confirm and verify

his

> > claim,
> > > > he freezes in-place!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For starters:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And we'll watch as the temperature goes down from
here.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) NGC regulations have dual meaning yet provides no
> > evidence
> > > > of this claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not anyone's but your own fault that you have little
> > experience
> > > > in or understanding of Gov't. Contracts or contract law. In
> this
> > > > case, your 'evidence' is contained within the
interpretations,
> > and
> > > > you just don't cut it when it comes to reading meanings

that

> > aren't
> > > > simple
> > > > B&W.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO. You're still trying that BS. Robbie, my boy, NGC
> > > regulations
> > > > > relate to casinos EXACTLY the same as drving regulations
> relate
> > > to
> > > > > drivers. Which means you're claiming each and every one

of

us
> > has
> > > a
> > > > > contract with the state when we get our driver's license.

I

> can
> > > see
> > > > > it now, a cop pulls Robbie over and he claims the regs

have

> > dual
> > > > > meanings. This is hilarious ... and did I mention ... A

LIE.

> > > >
> > > > You did a wee bit of reaching to come up with that nowhere
> > analogy,
> > > > didn't you little dicky....
> > >
> > > Nope ... both are factual examples of state mandated

regulation

> of
> > > licensees.
> >
> > And obviously, none which you have any comprehension of
whatsoever.
>
> Just about everyone has a driver's lcense and understands EXACTLY
> what I'm saying is true. The fact that you claim this is a lack
> of "comprehension" pretty much says it all.

The 'ol "I think everybody else is on my side so I'll feel
comfortable saying this baloney again" routine, hey? HAHAHA!! When
you do that is one of your funniest acts.

And, it's TRUE. Don't you have any brains at all? Almost everyone has
a driver's license, moron. This is not rocket science.

>
> > >
> > > > One would think that with all that
> > > > perceived intellect swimming around in that pourous head of
> > yours,
> > > > you'd be able to comprehend that regs are meaningless

without

> > their
> > > > being incorporated as conditions within any contract. Your

DL

> is
> > a
> > > > signed contract with the state that you'll play according

to

> the
> > > > rules (regs to the simple mind) and not just some weeny

piece

> of
> > > > plastic you pull out as proof of rights.
> > >
> > > LMAO. Not a contract, little man ... a LICENSE where you

agree

to
> > > OBEY the rules and regulations.
> >
> > Let me see.....A signed AGREEMENT (as little dicky says a DL

is)

is
> > NOT a contract! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> That's right. A contract is an agreement between two parties

where

> BOTH parties have input. You know, just like I quoted to you
> previously:
>
> Main Entry: 1con·tract
> Pronunciation: 'kän-"trakt
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin contractus, from contrahere
to
> draw together, make a contract, reduce in size, from com- +

trahere

> to draw
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties;
> especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement

for

> the supply of goods or services at a fixed price <make parts on
> >
>
> A license is a one-way street.
>
> Main Entry: 1li·cense
> Variant(s): or li·cence /'lI-s&n(t)s/
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin
> licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to

be

> permitted
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
> 2 a : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a
> business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b : a
> document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted
>
> You do have an obsession with looking foolish. How sweet it is ...

You certainly know how to waste your time! All you're doing is
showing you have no knowledge of the subject and feel more comfy
looking it all up and spinning your own translations!!

You gotta love it ... Robbie is going to argue with the definitions.
ROTFLMAO.

How do I
deserve to keep beating on such a nerd??! You don't 'think' you

have

any input to the Contract between you and the state on a DL? Maybe
not, because nerds think they know everything going in (which is

why

spanking them when they find out they're wrong afterwards is so

much

fun). Have you taken a DRIVING TEST to prove you can drive? Have

you

taken a WRITTEN TEST to prove you comprehend regulations? Have you
SIGNED anything attesting to your identification and
understandings??? THAT'S what a Contract is all about little dicky.

A

DL is a priviledge that you must contract for and is not a right.
(Oh, I'm getting a woody making you look so dumb!)!

You still gotta love it ... Robbie just spent all these words and
said absolutely NOTHING. He must adore looking foolish. This is
almost beyond funny. He went over the REQUIREMENTS for getting a
license. Those very things the regs require. It's the exact same
thing for casinos. They must adhere to the regs just as they are
written. No variations, no changing Ts & Cs as is typical in ACTUAL
contracts. This is sooooooooo easy.

> >
> > EXACTLY the same as the casinos. Now,
> > > tell us how I can manipulate the driving regs. Robbie, you

are

> > > looking about as idiotic as possible. But, hey, keep

defending

> your
> > > idiotic stance. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > That's OK little dicky. As soon as you recover from my
humiliating
> > you on the Contract issue, I'll give you time to spit out the
> marbles
> > in your mouth before you continue on.
>
> Now what little man? Once again, I'm right, you're wrong. How

sweet

> it is ...
>
Sorry Charlie.....I had to do it to you yet again!

Say something stupid? ... Good job. I'd say keep it up, but I already
know you will.

> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Rob states he employed 3 (or 4) mathematicians to
> > validate
> > > > his system yet has never provided any evidence they exist.
> > > >
> > > > >I have, and it is up to you to prove they do not exist

when

> > making
> > > > > an assertion contrary to what I have stated. You dance,
> squirm,
> > > and
> > > > > double-talk your way around the issue by not really

knowing

> how
> > > to
> > > > > > proceed in the first place....and then you exacerbate
your
> > > > > > inferiority complex by your obvious embarrassment over
> having
> > > to
> > > > > ask me how to handle it. I understand little
dicky....truly,
> I
> > do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who, besides a con man, would not be willing to provide
this
> > info?
> > > >
> > > > Somneone who likes to see nerds sweat. You've been given
names,
> > > > workplaces, cities and professions. Not my fault you're too
> cheap
> > > (or
> > > > broke) to invest in a few overseas calls. But you do know

the

> > truth
> > > > here, don't you----you don't ever want to discover the math
> > behind
> > > my
> > > > strategies because it'll forever kill your pathological
> addiction
> > > to
> > > > play 'almost' every day, and what in the world would a

boring

> > geek
> > > > and his cursed wife do every day WITHOUT the machines to

get

> > their
> > > > fix at? I'm taking you to school on today's reply here

little

> > > dicky,
> > > > so be careful or I'll start charging you.
> > >
> > > Lie, you've provided NO verifiable information. We already

know

> > > why ... you have none. Come on, just give us an email address
and
> > > we're in business.
> >
> > Workplaces, cities, names. You've had them for a looong time.

As

> > we've already seen numerous times, you're simply AFRAID of
> contacting
> > anyone or too broke to start. Use the phone. Use some of
> > that 'winning APer' money!
>
> ROTFLMAO. I gave Robbie and another chance and you all saw the
> results. Absolute silence. How sweet it is ...
>
> PS. He's NEVER provided any addresses or phone numbers. Check the
> archives.

What? No archive posting here? You're slipping up....or are you too
afraid because you know I'm right and you can't afford to make the
calls!

I can't call a number I don't have. But, maybe that's what you did.
You fantasized about some math guys, made up some phone numbers,
called them and when they answered "yes?" you said "thank you for
your verification" and hung up. Now, where are those email ids?

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Rob claims 227 wins out of 258 sessions while the
BEST
> > > > > > simulation shows only 201 wins.
> > > >
> > > > > > Keep up. It's now 230 wins and 32 losses, and contrary

to

> > your
> > > > > > neurotic assumptions, 103 of those sessions were on

other

> > than
> > > > > single
> > > > > > play strategy. You see, it helps to have some facts
before
> > > making
> > > > > > believe with all your nonsense, running useless, non-
> factual
> > > > sims,
> > > > > > and trying to be something that you're not.
> > > > >
> > > > > How many losses were on single play strategy? I'm more

than

> > > willing
> > > > > to run a simulation for that number of sessions.
> > > >
> > > > I will give you every detail if and when you want to sit

and

> > > discuss
> > > > every special play you don't want to understand so you can
see
> if
> > > you
> > > > have more than the ZOW upstairs--which I'm guessing you'll
JUMP
> > at!
> > >
> > > Perfect answer ... if you are a con man. Just tell us the
number
> of
> > > sessions, is it that too tough of a question?
> >
> > 157---which you'll now apply YOU'RE agenda to the sim and
continue
> to
> > be afraid to meet me to discern anything at all about the 1700+
> > special plays that make the strategy what it is--a winner to

the

> tune
> > of 80%-90%. Go ahead. Keep looking dufusy. (Like that one?).
>
> I wonder which orifice Robbie pulled that number from. Now that
we've
> all seen you lie about the last weekend alone, I don't think
> simulating another lie is all that valuable ... But here it is
> anyway.
>
> seed = 45676476, 8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP 0.99166 10-
6DDB
> 1.00067 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB 0.996946 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5 SDB
0.996946
> 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033
> Average hands at level 1 = 152 with 3 royals
> Average hands at level 2 = 217 with 2 royals
> Average hands at level 3 = 135 with 0 royals
> Average hands at level 4 = 214 with 2 royals
> Average hands at level 5 = 126 with 1 royals
> Average hands at level 6 = 176 with 1 royals
> Average hands at level 7 = 134 with 1 royals
> Average hands at level 8 = 178 with 2 royals
> Average hands at level 9 = 138 with 0 royals
> Average hands at level 10 = 203 with 0 royals
> Average hands at level 11 = 113 with 0 royals
> Average hands at level 12 = 189 with 0 royals
> Number of wins = 118 averaging 5873.432203
> Number of losses = 39 averaging 26634.358974
> Subgoal hits = 13.44586 Level resets = 7.299363 Level losses =
> 13.974523
> Average wagered = 91054.044586 for payback of 97.581929 (-
> 2201.751592/session)
> Expected payback = 99.533821 Total hands per session = 3213.178344
> Average bet = 5.667538, CB per session at .2% = 182.108089
>
> Exceeded expection 39 times and 100% 35 times, with CB 35 times
(100)
> Highest payback = 104.419951, lowest payback = 95.527607
>
I do get you to react any which way I'd like.......

Yup. I'm sure you wanted to see 35 winners out of 100 with the first
result coming in at 97.58%. But, if you really want everyone to see
what a losing proposition you pontificate, I'll provide even more.
Just ask. It only takes a minute or two. By the way, OEJs gets 60%
winners and FPDW even more. How sweet it is ...

> > > >
> > > > > > > 4) Rob claims a max loss of 34K while sims show an
> average
> > of
> > > > 52K at 6 levels and a minimum in over 2500 sims of 38K.
> > > >
> > > > > > If you have proof that I lied here then you might want

to

> > > produce
> > > > > it rather than operate under the thin cover of your
> theoretical
> > > > > security blankey.....one in which the dufus who input the
> info
> > > > didn't have the facts and still doesn't. I think that says

a

> lot
> > > > about the integrity level of someone like you.
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, I have to retract this one. It turns out I was
> using
> > > the
> > > > 1% number for six levels so this was only for 25 sessions.
When
> I
> > > > > changed this I achieved losses as low as 34K at around a

1

in
> > 100
> > > > > ratio. Still unlikely, but plausible.
> > > >
> > > > Your output numbers have zero meaning when you don't have

the

> > right
> > > > input. Figure that out yet? But here's how it generally
works.
> > Play
> > > > highly volatile "negative" games with 3X the credits as
played
> on
> > > BP.
> > > > Eventually, hands like AAAA3 will occur and at a high
> > > denominational
> > > > level & paying 5 figures. Yes, that's the same exact hand
that
> > pays
> > > a
> > > > whopping 25 credits on your famous "positive" FPDW!
> > >
> > > ROTFLMAO. Another con man answer. You are doing my job for me
> > better
> > > than ever. Must be Jim's reference to you backing down with

Fez

> has
> > > you EVEN MORE frustrated.
> >
> > How that is an answer to the input here is a wonder only a

nerd's

> > mother could understand.....
>
> You must not have read the next paragraph. Everyone else
understands
> that naming a big hand in one game which is not a big hand in
another
> is pure con man BS.

Huh? Now you're resorting to incomparable analogies!

No, that is EXACTLY what you tried. RIV must be alive and kicking.

>
> > But I continue to enjoy the reference
> > to jim, fezzik, & this or that guy. It simply shows I've taken

on

> the
> > world and no matter how many bozos line up to face me or how

many

> try
> > to at one time and where, every one has always been knocked

down

> (and
> > some out). I always prevail--as you so painfully have been
taught.
> > But don't boil over here. Keep alert! I've got more eye-openers
for
> > you down the road!
>
> And even more con man BS. How sweet it is ...

Nothing to respond with....I LOVE it!

No more than necessary. Just the obvious truth.

>
> > >
> > > PS. The hand AKQJ suited in diamonds with the Jack of spades
pays
> > > $5000 on OEJs. What does it pay on DDB? I'll make it easy for
> > you ... 5 credits ($25) ... a push. Do you actually think

anyone

> with
> > a brain doesn't see how stupid your comparison is?
> >
> > HAHAHA! One-Eyed-Jacks?? NOBODY plays that game, and if you do
then
> > you're NOBODY! (Duh....I already knew that).
>
> So, my little example that PROVEs all you do is babble con man BS
> constantly got to you. How sweet it is ...

You got THAT out of my ridiculing you for playing that weiner game??

Yes. Anyone who would attempt to select any particular VP game over
another based on anything but payback is clearly a babbling con man.

>
> > So now let's do some of
> > your geek-math you so heavily rely upon when you are at a loss
for
> > words. Suited AKQJ with the J of Spades: Looks like there's

only

3
> of
> > them in the deck, and at a 1000 credit win. Now AAAA with a
kicker.
> > Only one of them....but there's 12 kickers, @ a 2000 credit

win!

> Now
> > what was that about having a brain and seeing WHAT???!!!!
>
> ROTFLMAO. Sorry to make you look foolish once again little

Robbie.

> While there are 12 combinations of AAAA/kicker, there are 50
> combinations of WRFs in OEJs. And, 1000*50 > 2000*12 ... so those
> with a "brain" can all see that you will be dealt many MORE of
these
> big winners playing OEJs than you would playing DDB. What's even
more
> hilarious is Robbie stuck his foot completely in his mouth by
> vomiting up the "having a brain" statement.

Bozo, re-read what you said. "A suited AKQJ with the J of SPADES

pays

1000". That constitutes THREE, not FIFTY.

Sorry, moron, but you used the example AAAA3 which is just 4, not 12.
So, instead of trying to obfuscate the issue, I did the intelligent
thing of comparing ALL the 2000 credit winners in DDB with ALL the
1000 credits winners in OEJs. That's how one maintains
credibility ... I know, that's something you don't understand.

Having trouble reading
this, aren't you.... However, in the likely event that you simply
were rattled by me again and were ONCE AGAIN incomplete in a
response, then why wouldn't you compare the high-end hands of OEJ

to

the high-end hands od DDB??

LMAO. You still can't do math, moron? If you want to compare all DDB
quads and above to all the OEJ bonus hands (hands paying over 250
credits) we can do that too. The top paying hands in DDB pay back 21%
of the total payback. And, in OEJs the number is ... drum roll
please ... 21%. Anything else? This is soooooooooo easy.

Since few probably understand the distribution of OEJ bonus hands ...

- Wild RF -- 1000 credits, occurs every 3700 hands
- Five of kind -- 375 credits, occurs every 2150 hands
- Straight Flush -- 250 credits, occurs every 500 hands

All assuming correct play. PS. Robbie's 9-6 DDB pays back 98.9% while
my OEJs pays back 100.28%.

Now don't tell me the cat's got your
tongue on this one.

I think the cat got you somewhat lower. You gotta love it ...

>
> Of course, he completely failed to respond to the fact that none

of

> this matters. Different games have different paybacks for

different

> hands. I was simply proving his statement was con man BS. Now,

Rob

> continues to prove it for me. How sweet it is ...

More ramble....and more egg on the face for little dicky. I

wouldn't

be surprised if he left out a fact or two in that one either.

LMAO. The cat still got a good grip?

>
> >
> > > > > > > 5) Rob claims VP machines have multiple cold cycles

and

a
> > few
> > > > hot cycles. This would not be random or would it even be
> possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have proof on this assertion also? I can put your
mind
> at
> > > > > > ease....for $25,000. I'll show you the signed agreement
> > between
> > > > > > myself and a certain VP at XXX over the issue. If that
> > doesn't
> > > do
> > > > > it
> > > > > > for poor little dicky then he has no option other than

to

> > > believe
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > I do believe this is the issue that most irritates him
over
> > me,
> > > > > > because it strikes a geek right in the heart. How could
> > someone
> > > > > else
> > > > > > POSSIBLY have info that a geek doesn't?? It also allows
me
> to
> > > win
> > > > > > against the stupid belief that AP's have over the
machines
> > > > > > being 'random'--which is only for their own self-
> > justification
> > > > > > purposes so they can keep going to casinos all the time
and
> > > play
> > > > > for
> > > > > > ungody numbers of hours. Looks like you lose here too!
> > > > >
> > > > > The old "iside info" con. If Robbie really had this
> information
> > > he
> > > > > would plaster it all over this forum. By the way, if you

go

> > back
> > > a
> > > > > year or so you will see where Rob admitted that VP WAS
random.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Why would I 'plaster' confidential all over the forum.
> You've
> > > > seen my video, read my article, and know I can't do that

now.

> > So ???
> > >
> > > Like I said. The old "inside info" con. ROTFLMAO. It is

soooooo

> > good to see Robbie spilling his con. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > I'm clear that you're envious on how someone other than you--a
true
> > geek--could get any 'inside info' on your cursed habit, video
> poker,
> > before and/or instead of you! How can that possibly be? Answer:
Who
> > are you??!! HAHAHA!!
>
> I have all the inside info that anyone could need. An

understanding

> of the math and the ability to read the simple regulations that
apply
> to VP. Only someone perpetrating a con would claim otherwise.

You have 'it all' allright! Too bad it's nothing but a geek past!

RIV steps in and says it best.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Bozo, vp IS random as your sacred 'regs' say the

machines

> are
> > to
> > > > be....only you can't read between the lines for its
> compatibility
> > > to
> > > > the portions that discuss ranges, legality, and sequences.
> > >
> > > It's random ... except it's not really random ... except it

is

> > > random ... except ... Need I say more. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > You could have just said you're humbled and baffled at the same
> time
> > and saved yourself the embarrassment. I understand you haven't
the
> > mental capacity to read and comprehend Gov't Contract Law. It's
> > alright little dicky. Mommy will wipe your tears later.....
>
> LMAO. You're swimming upstream here. I've already proved beyond

any

> shadow of a doubt that there are no contracts involved and that

is

> all part of your lying con. How sweet it is ...

Why do you think this thread has "I want my Mommy" in it for you??
It's all right there--a wordy cover-up for your lack of knowledge

on

what a contract is comprised of.

Cop: Sir, you were going 80mph in a 60mph zone.
Rob: So? My contract with the state of AZ allows me to go whatever
speed I want.
Cop: Here's your ticket. Have a nice day.
Rob: Duh! When I was in high school ...
Cop (later in the day): You should have heard the idiotic excuse this
moron gave me today. I thought I'd heard them all ...

You gotta love it ...

>
> >
> > > > Education
> > > > is the country's #1 method of not looking stupid in forum
> > > > discussions. You've never been to the right class, so

you'll

> > never get it.
> >
> > > I think we all "get it". Wink, wink. How sweet it is ...
> >
> > No, I don't believe you did. Your lack of education on Contract
Law
> > makes you look funny. And stupid. And I LIKE IT!!
>
> LMAO. Wink, wink.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 6) Rob claims it is impossible to correctly play
machines
> > > well
> > > > > > enough to win, even with a 1-2% advantage. True APers

say

> > > > otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > > > If you were able to produce one shred of evidence that
you
> or
> > > any
> > > > > of the other phoneys win I might make a correction to

that.

> But
> > > > right now I'll stick to what I know about me and maybe
upwards
> of
> > a
> > > > thousand other 'AP's' who have contacted me over the years.
> > > >
> > > > > Does anyone else find it interesting that Rob only

believes

> > those
> > > > who say they lost and no one who says they win. Could it be
> > because
> > > > one group supports his con while the other group doesn't?
> > > >
> > > > Big surprise that you'd focus on the group thing. Some have
> said
> > > > they've won intermittently over the years, but ALL have a
solid
> > > > lifetime loss playing that addictive way.
> > >
> > > Lie. It doesn't get anymore obvious than this ...
> >
> > Prove how obvious it is. With verifiable facts. Your nebulous,
> > incomplete way of showing you win is nothing more than a sack
> > of 'trust me's'.
>
> And several hundred (or thousand) others ... Your lies can't

change

> this obvious truth.

Imagine if I required you to PROVE that! Or at least produce the e-
mails atresting to this!! (It just keeps getting better, doesn't
it!!?)!

Yup. I suspect everyone on this forum is ALSO a member of VPFree.
They've ALREADY heard it. They ALREADY know it's the truth. You are
the ONLY one claiming something else. You might as well shine the
letter C..O..N over the top of all your posts.

>
> > And BTW--haven't seen jim or anyone else for that
> > matter try to offer proof of winning.
>
> I did. You declined. What more can I do? Add to that that Robbie
> backed down from the bet with Fez and I think most reasonable
people will get the picture.

Did you get it yet? "Trust me's" have no more value than IOU's in
this world. Good thing I didn't publish the same nonsense you do in
my GT article! You'd have had your best day--I would have been

fired

for printing baloney!

No "Trust me's". Just the facts. Only a paranoid, delusional,
narcissistic con man would contend that EVERYONE lies. Now, what
evidence does little Robbie have that ALL these people lose? NONE.
Talk about "Trust me's" ...

>
> > With all them 'advantage
> > players' out there, surely one or two would step up to the

plate

> and
> > take a pitch from Singer now, wouldn't they.... Or do I detect
one
> > big chicken coupe??
>
> Yup, you were the chicken. How sweet it is ...

??? Is Pee Wee the only reply?

We all read the LVA forum from last June/July. You chickened out in
front of everyone. How sweet it is ...

>
> >
> > > > > 7) Rob claims only 22 losses at level 4 while playing 30+
> times
> > > > at level 5.
> > > >
> > > > > > If you only know how much others who write me

understand

> how
> > > > > moronic you look over this one....When you come to
understand
> > > that
> > > > not all my sessions are played single-play and the $25

level

is
> > > > played at other times on other strategies, maybe you'll

feel

as
> > > > stupid as you look.
> > > >
> > > > > Sure, after scambling around for two weeks you come back
with
> > > > another lie. How sweet it is ...
> > > >
> > > > ....which means you neither like it nor want to go to my

site

> to
> > > > verify it. Mr. "all-facts/no baloney" 100% geek? strikes
again!
> > >
> > > We all know exactly WHY you came forward with this after

giving

> > > different results just a few weeks ago. To protect the CON.
> Sorry,
> > > moron, but changing your tune in mid-stream after being

caught

in
> a
> > > lie only makes you look worse.
> >
> > I wonder why you didn't address the fact that my site has all

the

> > rules on the strategies and they've been there and the same for

6

> > years. Hmmmm....Doesn't sound too promising for your weaseling
> around
> > now any more, does it...... Next time read them with
understanding
> > and you won't look so weak when it comes to manipulating them

for

> > your own agenda. Sorry----you've been CAUGHT again!
>
> I can only go by what you say here. You change your story more
often
> than the weather changes. How sweet it is ...

"I can only go by what you say here".....should I cry now or wait
until the cows come home milkless?? A true geek understands what he
reads on the Internet, and follows thru with adequate questions

when

in doubt. Know what a true geek is little dicky??

Rob Singer.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > He instead relies on make-believe 'simulations'
> > > > > > > > that by his own admission he knows very little

about

my
> > > > actual strategy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All I know is what Rob provided me. If that was
incorrect
> > > than
> > > > I guess we need to list that as lie 8).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All you've ever want to do is grab a loose

understanding

of
> > my
> > > > > > strategy without meeting me face-to-face in order to
> > perfectly
> > > > > > comprehend what you were trying to accomplish, just so
you
> > > could
> > > > > take the easy way out and run with something that didn't
take
> > > much
> > > > > effort. I've seen lazy, but this is a cake-taker.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never turned down a face to face meeting to discuss

your

> > > > strategy. I guess we can list this as lie number 10).
> > > >
> > > > There's not a high enough number to represent how many lies
> > you're
> > > > telling on this one. Then you'll have no problem setting up

a

> > meet
> > > > next Monday or later in May? How about at your townhouse?
Love
> to
> > > > meet the wife. Oh, BTW--I will bring a witness who'll take
> notes
> > so
> > > > you won't claim lies and misunderstandings in order to

wiggle

> > your
> > > > way out when you get caught wanting to make something up
about
> my
> > > > strategy that's not there.
> > >
> > > Can we play tennis and bowl too? I'll be back in 3 weeks.
> >
> > Yes--my foot is 100% better now after the treatments, and I'm
> jogging
> > again daily. No surgery required. $20,000 on each,
>
> LMAO. You stated last time it would be for NO money. Now, you

come

> back with 20K each. Does your GT publisher know about this?

Nope--and there won't be an article on it. They don't like to give
attention to people like Fezzik or nobody's like you. Since he ran
twice they're not interested in printing any betting info any

longer.

My superiority has been established and they've seen what they

needed

to for verification.

Translation: They had enough of Rob's lies and will can him if he
keeps it up.

We all
> know you'll back down anyway. So ... I accept. Best 4-7 sets in
> tennis and best total pins over 10 games at bowling.

No backing down----on the ENTIRE proposal. Where's the MAN in you.
Certainly you can find him SOMEWHERE!! You're always crying about

my

not winning--ONE session for real money--$50k. Isn't it a big
surprise that you deleted that part. So are you in or out of the
chicken coupe??

You've already had THAT chance and you backed down. I don't need any
more proof that you are a fraud. Besides, I'm the one who stated you
are favored to WIN a one session bet. Why would I make a bet where
you have a 4-1 advantage by my numbers? Or, 8-1 by your numbers?

So, is this your way of chickening out of the tennis/bowling bet?

1. Tennis for $20k, best of 7.
2. Bowling (I'm almost embarrassed, but I'll practice this week--
that's all it'll take because of my superior body and mind) for

$20k,

best score over 10 games.
3. One RS system play, max 6-levels, if $2500 goal is attaned I win
your $50k. If not, you win mine.

In case anyone hasn't seen this before, this is exactly how Rob
chickens out on all his bets. We just saw it on the LVA forum and
here it is again. Haven't we seen this enough already.

Show you're a man instead of a geek. Talk or walk. Which is it.
Entire package or nothing.

You gotta love it ... It's obvious that Rob is completely scared of
facing me in the tennis/bowling matches (and I still haven't played
tennis in over 4 years). I suppose that he's such an uncoordinated
goon that running away is his only chance. How sweet it is ...