--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
> > > > The Guru's base everything on computer simulation. I hate
to
> > break this news to everyone, but your home computer is not the
real
> > world of a VP machine that has been sitting on a casino floor
for
a
> > few years.
> >
> > > Please explain the difference. Most home computers have
faster
> > CPUs but also have slow disks. A VP machine IS a computer
running
a
> > single imbedded program.
> >
> > If you read the post first rather than run around like a
gremlin
> > trying to out-do others all the time, you'd have seen the
answer.
>
> I read the post and there was no answer.Then your reading skills are as lacking as ever.
Nope. I think it's your reading comprehension ... again.
>
> > Please don't TRY to look any more foolish than you already are.
>
> Asserted lie.Prove that assertion.
You used "are" with no adverbs to reduce the aggressive nature of
your assertion. The lie is obvious.
>
> > It's embarrassing with me as your sponsor.
>
> RIV.Document that assertion.
Once again, obvious for all to see. Your embarrassment at not
understanding two commonly used words is just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> >
> > > > Machines do run in hot and cold streaks. We have all had
them.
> > >
> > > Again, please provide supporting evidence. Personally, I
happen
> to
> > > believe that people, not machines, "run in hot and cold
streaks".
> > For example, let's look at golf. When a golfer is on top of his
> > game, like Lefty is right now
> >
> > Now you've resorted to comparing a human golfer to a vp
> > player....and a golf ball to a computer! Incredible. How about
> > providing supporting documentation on THAT one!!
>
> I see you missed the analogy completely. You even "inserted" your
> comment before the analogy was complete ... which made it obvious
to everyone (must be RIV at work here). You make this soooo easy.You mean 'asserted' don't you?!!
No, I meant what I said. The analogy comparison was hot golf clubs
vs. a hot machine. You even cut out that part of my post. That
clearly points out you either commented without fully reading or just
didn't get it. Either way, your embarrassment continues.
> > Seems everyone in the world but you don't know about the hot &
cold pre-programmed cycles, little dicky.
>
> I think you got your negatives a little confused.But not the point. Insert 'assertion'.
I answered your ridiculous "point" in my next paragraph. Don't you
ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
>
> If, as you claimed, you had read "Hacking the Casinos for a
Million
> Bucks":
>
> http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:6ev-
>
BH76FmoJ:media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/97/07645695/0764569597.p
>
df+hacking+the+casinos+for+a+million+bucks&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
> you would understand how a VP machines works. They explained it
and
> it was very simple. No secondary programming, no hot or cold
streaks. They even used a well known RNG (Knuth). Next, I suppose
you
will claim these guys are in cahoots with the casinos, IGT, NGC and
> probably some aliens to boot.They're geeks, cheats and crooks, and they made a deal with the
prosecutor if you've ever followed up on what THEY wrote. You want
to
believe what they said was complete and the end-all--have at it. I
know differently.
LMAO. When faced with direct supporting evidence to my "fact"
(machines are random/fair) all little Robbie can do is babble. Please
explain why they would lie about the how VP machines operated? Can't
do it? Your embarrassment continues.
>
> > What's the matter--feeling LEFT
> > OUT again by the nonsense-selling gurus? Mad at them cause they
> > didn't 'fill you in'? Is that why you have a hair on your butt
with Dancer all the time?
>
> Once again I have made Robbie look like a fool. And, once again,
it
> is the facts that betray him.
I'd say that's a great big YES!
Good, admitting the truth is the first step in your recovery.
> > Then let the sufferring stop here and now, and
> > let me help you out a little more. Each casino has it's own
> > individual Memorandum of Agreement with the machine
manufacturer.
>
> Save your watch ...Huh? Is that a slice of Americana that I missed out on
It's a saying used when someone is clearly dishing out a lot of BS.
It goes like this. "Your boots are history, try to save your watch."
while helping
the country as you hid in the geek-room playing with computers?
So, you want to try this one again ... which one of us served our
country? I have a DD214 (honorable discharge) little man, what do you
have? Robbie forgets these little things which then leads to his
continued embarrassment.
>
> >Every installation requires the vp machine NEVER dip below a
certain hold percentage. And just how do you think the percentage
comes up? No, they don't call me in to play a few sessions. Take a
good guess.
>
> I already know. This is another one of your lies. I've already
quoted the Nevada Gaming Regs. I've already shown that Nevada VP
machines must be fair and random, with NO secondary programming, to
be in compliance with these regs. You really have sunk to new
depths.
Then I suggest you read the ENTIRE regs this time around, and srop
fooling yourself. You seem to get stuck worrying about '2nd
programming'. Maybe you just missed out on the new technologies
while
you were consumed with playing vp.
If there is something in the regs that allow cheating by the casinos,
please post it for us all to read ... LMAO. Personally I will stick
with reg 14.040 which requires a fair/random results. PS. He just
can't help making idiotic/embarrassing claims.
Relevant part of 14.040:
2. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome
of each play of a
game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence
limits using a standard
chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which
produce winning or
losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the
initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling
games, the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome
must be equal to the
Regulation 14, Manufacturers, Distributors, etc. Page 5
(Rev. 7/05)
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the
live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in
a position in any game
outcome must be constant.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of
game elements or
detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount
wagered, or upon the
style or method of play.
3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After
selection of the game
outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary
decision which affects the
result shown to the player.
4. Must display the rules of play and payoff schedule.
5. Must not automatically alter paytables or any function of the
device based on internal
computation of the hold percentage.
I especially like the last item which clearly forbids the exact thing
Rob stated was done .. "Every installation requires the vp machine
NEVER dip below a certain hold percentage". Come on Rob, please
explain how machines can do this while meeting the above regulation.
> > > But to hear the Guru's tell it, it's all part of your
lifetime
···
of playing.
> >
> > > That's exactly what it is. Try flipping a coin a few thousand
> > times and track the patterns.
> >
> > The usual geek-argement to fall back on when lost in a quagmire-
--
> > the famous coin flip.
>
> Notice the babbling when faced with a easy method to understand
what random means. You can just feel Rob's discomfort.And you can just cut thru the tension with a knife as little dicky
tried to come up with a more mundane, respected, and technical
explanation of the point he was stumbling through.
Nope. Just a simple method to gain better understanding of randomness
that anyone can do. You should try it someday.
While he so very
tightly clings to the belief that all machines in Nv. MUST be
random
because that's the way he wants them to be, common sense once again
trumps the geek.
Has nothing to do with what I want, it has everything to do with the
regulations I just quoted. Common sense tells us that IGT has no
reason to violate the law. It could seriously compromise their
business and provides them nothing in return.
> > > > It all comes down to "special plays". Is there such a
thing?
> I
> > > believe so in certain circumstances.
> > >
> > > If you trust in the randomness of the machines then there are
no
> > such things as special plays. There are only plays. Over time
> anyone
> > > playing will approach the statistical average of the way they
> play.
> >
> > You also forgot to mention you trust that your mama didn't drop
you
> > on your head when you were a child--only we've seen quite the
> > contrary to that misadventure.
>
> Once again, Rob cannot refute the indisputable logic.Read on.....
That's what I love about logic. It silences Rob every time.
>
> > > > Have I every hit a 4ok
> > > > or royal with a special play? Many times since I started
using
> > > them
> > > > about 6 years ago. If you approach a Guru or math whiz
with
> > this,
> > > their
> > > > eyes will glaze over and proceed to tell you that you
cannot
> win
> > > that
> > > > way in the long run. I then ask, "My long run or the
machines
> > long
> > > > run?" and they usually walk away from me at that point.
> > >
> > > The only "long run" that is meaningful to any gambler is
THEIR
> > long run. Do you have evidence that using these special plays
has
> > improved your results?
> >
> > Watch out Bob. Even if you TELL this guy what he's asking for -
> like
> > I have on how special plays that deviate from optimal strategy
have
> > meant hundreds of thousands of dollars to me in profit
(including
> > those two $25 quads w/kickers and the $25 RF) he'll come back
and
> > either dismiss it because you're 'asserting' something without
100%
> > supporting geek-documentation, or he'll call you a liar (to
which
> if
> > you demand evidence to that effect, he'll skip over it the next
go-
> > around).
>
> No.Denial.
Asserted lie.
Statistically, some people will do better than expected with any
> approach.Attempt to save face. A 'random' approach if there ever was one.
Just the fact, as usual. However, you should try saving face in view
of the immense embarrassment you must be feeling. I think your inner
voice is speaking out again.
I simply asked Bob whether he thought these plays had
> improved HIS results.Why do you think he told you about them--to hear you rant on and on
about how 'random' the machines are so that's what he should
expect??
Wake up.
I suspect he "thinks" they have helped him. I want to see if
he "knows" they have helped him or whether he has selective memory
just like you. The only way to "know" is to track all these plays and
compare results.
What Rob leaves out in his story is the $125
> lost quite often (and many times $1000)Asserted lie, and factual lie. In my strategy, the $25 denom. is
not
a frequent level required to win. So your selective interpretation
is
more than an outright lie--it's a negative fabrication of a known
truth.
The number of dealt two pairs is quite large. Unless you've tracked
the number of hits vs. misses, no one can judge whether your special
plays they have been a positive or negative contribution. In
addition, since you also use these plays at lower denoms as well, ALL
uses must be tracked to determine your final result.
>and it doesn't take all that many to eat away the few wins. Of
course, he's never tracked these losses and therefore he cannot
prove
whether he is ahead or behind by making these plays.
Here's a fact for you to chew on and worry some more about. Of my
227
winning sessions and 31 losing sessions, 32 have gone to the $25
level--with all but 8 being winners. The 3 winning hands I
mentioned
that deviated from optimal strategy produced $140,000 in profit
alone, and I'm sure some others occurred on a smaller scale withing
that denomination. Even if EVERY HAND in those losing sessions were
a
result of a special play gone bad, the effect would be minimal.
I'd have a chance to believe this ... except, Rob has admitted he
seldom moves on to the $25 level ("10% of the time" in his own
words). If he was so successful, as he just stated, why would he
waver? Food for thought?
> > > > They truly
> > > > believe, for whatever reason, that only if you buy their
> > software,
> > > > books, and strategy cards, will you ever win and are very
> > > intolerant of
> > > > discussions that question that premise..
> > >
> > > I don't think "buying" stuff has anything to do with the
premise.
> > If
> > > VP is fair/random with independently dealt hands, then the
MATH
> > > predicts that MORE people will do better over time using
expert
> > play.
> > > There are no guarantees. If you remember some discussions
> > previously
> > > on VPFree it was discussed that Max-EV strategy is not a holy
> > grail.
> > > Each gambler should determine their own goals and proceed
> > > accordingly. If someone wishes to sacrifice EV for the bigger
> > hands
> > > and hopes that they hit more often than statistically
average,
> > then
> > > that is fine. However, telling others that this method is the
> BEST
> > > way to win is simply a lie.
> >
> > Well there you have it! He's already underhandedly calling you
a
> > liar before you even answer!
>
> No, I simply stated a fact.More like an 'assertion' don't you think?? Or because i
used 'think'
is it now an opinion??
No, it is a mathematical fact given a fair/random VP game. It has
nothing to do with opinions.
>
> > > > This is the discussion that will never take place on
VPFree.
> > The
> > > loyal
> > > > followers are very aware that any thread that becomes
> disruptive
> > > will be
> > > > moved over here and they will make sure that it is.
> > >
> > > I think the problem is one of accepting the machines are fair
and
> > > random. Once you accept that, then everything is possible,
but
> > > nothing is PREDICTABLE. Therein lies the problem of having
any
> > > reasonable discussion.
> >
> > Little dicky resides in fantasyland, where everything is hearts
&
> > flowers, he nor his wife are compulsive/problem gamblers,
>
> Asserted lie.Provide documentation on your assertion disputing that it is a lie.
It's very simple. When you FIRST make a claim, it falls upon you to
provide the proof. If you cannot do this, the only reasonable
conclusion is that you lied.
>
> > and the vp
> > machines are completely random.
>
> So far, no one has shown evidence that machines are not random.
If
> you don't believe the machines are random then why on earth would
> anyone play and expect to win?
>
> > It HAS to be that way, and HIS way
> > is the ONLY possible way. No one else could ever possibly be
right
> > if it differs from his scenario. Otherwise, nerds would be
> > committing suicide from coast to coast in record numbers.
>
> Not my way. The gamimg commissions around the US set the regs. I
read
> them and trust that they are enforced ... until someone provides
> proof that they are gaffed. So far, in 30+ years of VP, no such
> evidence has been found. Furthermore, evidence does exist that
the
> machines are exactly as they claim.
You're so naiive. You want so much to trust that everything is
black
& white when it's not. For years the US Gov't. has written
contracts
with legal wording that allows loopholes and inconclusiveness. I've
read the Nevada regs, and although I've not disected it as much as
I
did the AC regs--which is full of holes--from my IGT contact to the
obvious cycles that ANYONE can tell are programmed into vp
machines,
I have no doubt the same type wording is used as in the ones I've
been involved with in the Gov't. therefore, no one's going to look
beyond a certain point--which is exactly the purpose intended.
Rob should feel intensely embarrassed about right now. I've quoted
the regs and he still claims that they are not followed. Of course we
all know why he does this. How could he play out his little con
unless he claims the machines are cheating?
>
> Rob, is this the best you can offer to support your assertions?
More inuendo and outright lies is all you've provided.You don't have to believe it if that's what you want.
First remotely intelligent thing you've said. I trust most of us have
already taken that approach.
You're not the
type to accept anything, proven or not, unless it was you who
uncovered it.
Obvious lie. I did not "uncover" advantage play.
I believe it, my results support it because it only
takes me 10 minutes at a machine to determine its cycle, Bob Sommer
seems to believe it, and more and more people are coming aboard. If
you don't get with the program little dicky, you're gonna be left
behind on this one too.
ROTFLMAO. The con (and embarrassment) continues for little Robbie.
>
> >
> > > I once happened on a bank of slot machine that was not
working
as
> > > intended (at least I assume it wasn't intended). It was a
> > > Red/White/Blue 1 line basic game. During the time my wife and
I
> > won
> > > over $3300 we never saw any of the top jackpots. What
happened
> was
> > 3
> > > red bars came up every few spins. All you had to do was keep
> > pressing
> > > the spin button and the credits gradually increased. My
point?
> > This
> > > has happened to me ONCE. It is always possible to find
machines
> > that
> > > aren't random/fair. Never assume anything. However, most of
the
> > time
> > > it is more prudent to accept that things really are as they
> should
> > > be, there is no conspiracy and all you can do is set your own
> > goals
> > > and proceed accordingly.
> >
> > Yup, he's at his best when talking about gambling situations!
>
> Thank you. RIV speaks.I liked it better when I called the writing 'goofy'!
Yes, RIV is pretty smart when it comes to you.
and