vpFREE2 Forums

"The Video Poker Edge" and Linda Boyd's Strategy Cards

#21

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vegasvpplayer" <vegasvpplayer@...>
wrote:

I agree a strategy card for Jacks or Better is worthless to me

since

I have memorized Dancer's computer perfect strategy from his

report.

Since I am human, I obviously make mistakes when playing related to
distractions and lapses in concentration.

I already knew that :wink: I make way more mistakes than I'd like to as
well. I made the comment as a lead in to my next statement.

<<If I am mistaken
> in this regard then why did you ignore the potential impact of
> simplicity on your overall results?>>>

I would contend that the computer perfect strategy for Jacks or
Better is so simple with a little study and practice that the
majority of the errors that are made for the reasons listed above
will remain constant no matter which strategy is used.

However, if you're not using a strategy card in the casino then it
really has no impact on your results ... no matter what strategy card
you used during the education process. Read on ... I go into more
detail on this point later.

<<<All it would take is a SINGLE
> screw up from a more complicated strategy card to lose far more
> than .1%.>>>>

I say get the extra 0.1% under your belt so you can waste it later
from making boner, I mean bone-headed mistakes when watching the
cocktail waitresses. Then you will only be 0.1% behind expectation
instead of 0.2%.

The software will have told you whether a play is right or not while
practicing. No strategy card can match the software which is 100%
accurate. By the time you get to the casino it does not matter what
the payback was for the strategy card you used while learning. The
strategy card lets you test yourself as you play by giving you hints
and helps build your confidence. It is then useful as backup in the
casino. If a simpler strategy card allows for more hands to be played
while learning then it may very well lead to improved understanding
and better results at the casino.

I realize this is not quantifiable which is pretty much my point. My
own feeling is a simple strategy card is best when first starting.
After reaching a certain level of expertise then moving to a more
complex card (or none at all) may be desireable. However, that is a
personal choice for every individual. What's right for Dick may not
be right for Harry (let alone Tom).

>
> No one can put a VALID dollar amount on ANY strategy. It is
> impossible.
>

Perhaps, but why start at EV - 0.1% in a situation where EV is so
achievable. We're not talking One Eyed Jacks here, we're talking
Jacks or Better. I can't see why anyone would have to chose Jack
over Jack-Ten suited for "simplicity".

According to Linda's strategy card, they don't. As I've already
pointed out several times, Bob was wrong. In addition, just because
we know JOB is an easy game does not mean it is easy for a beginner.
I don't think OEJs is all that hard but I've been playing it for 12
years making reasonable profits. To a new player, taking on any VP
game for the first time is a demanding task. Don't discount the value
of simplicity.

This is the type of discussion that I would have liked to have had
with Bob. It gets to the center of the issue. It's too bad Bob is so
afraid of debating me that he resorts to name calling tactics instead.

Dick

#22

Harry wrote: a reasoned interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy calls
for holding suited JT over lone J. I don't find any particular moral
victory in saying so.

Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with mroejacks
or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.) Please quote the line or
lines that tell you to hold 'JT'. I can find no reference to it. And are
you talking about the strategy card or the strategy in the book? The
strategies are not the same.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#23

Harry wrote: a reasoned interpretation of Linda's Jacks strategy calls
for holding suited JT over lone J. I don't find any particular moral
victory in saying so.

Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with mroejacks
or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.) Please quote the line or
lines that tell you to hold 'JT'. I can find no reference to it. And

are

you talking about the strategy card or the strategy in the book? The
strategies are not the same.

This just keeps getting better.

Bob, both Dean and Harry (and anyone not looking to save face) can read
plain English. That's all it takes. I've already quoted the relevant
information. Still waiting for that apology to Linda. Oh, and while
you're at it, you can apologize to me.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#24

Linda's Book on page 71 part of Table 3.14 Strategies
for 9/6 Jacks or Better:
Dealt Hand: High Cards
Hold Cards: Hold High Cards
Exceptions: 2. Hold two to a Royal Flush,unless Ace
and ten, King and ten, or Queen and ten. Then hold
high cards.
Taboos: Never hold suited Ace and ten, King and
ten, or Queen and ten to go for a royal.

I interpret this to mean hold a suited Jack and ten
since it is two to a Royal.

The strategy card in back of book says:
Dealt hand: High cards(Ace, King, Queen, and Jack)
Recommended Action: 2. Hold two to Royal Flush, unless
Ace and ten, King and ten, or Queen and ten. Then
hold high cards.

This also indicates to hold a suited Jack and ten.

There is no third column "Taboos" on the strategy
card.

···

--- Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

Harry wrote: a reasoned interpretation of Linda's
Jacks strategy calls
for holding suited JT over lone J. I don't find any
particular moral
victory in saying so.

Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you.
(Debating with mroejacks
or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.) Please
quote the line or
lines that tell you to hold 'JT'. I can find no
reference to it. And are
you talking about the strategy card or the strategy
in the book? The
strategies are not the same.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners,
the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to
//www.videopokerforwinners.com

#25

Excellent post. I was hoping someone else would post the text.

I suppose Bob will now claim that you and I are the same person and
therefore this plain English can be ignored .... Still waiting for
those apologies, Bob.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Richard Boozer <reboozer@...> wrote:

Linda's Book on page 71 part of Table 3.14 Strategies
for 9/6 Jacks or Better:
Dealt Hand: High Cards
Hold Cards: Hold High Cards
Exceptions: 2. Hold two to a Royal Flush,unless Ace
and ten, King and ten, or Queen and ten. Then hold
high cards.
Taboos: Never hold suited Ace and ten, King and
ten, or Queen and ten to go for a royal.

I interpret this to mean hold a suited Jack and ten
since it is two to a Royal.

The strategy card in back of book says:
Dealt hand: High cards(Ace, King, Queen, and Jack)
Recommended Action: 2. Hold two to Royal Flush, unless
Ace and ten, King and ten, or Queen and ten. Then
hold high cards.

This also indicates to hold a suited Jack and ten.

There is no third column "Taboos" on the strategy
card.

#26

Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with mroejacks
or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.)

LOL, anyone that agrees with mroejacks is the same person? I can
promise you that I am not mroejacks. I've only played one-eyed jacks
once in my entire life so there is no way I could be Mr. One-Eyed.
(Based on a recent post by Dick, I am assuming that is what mroejacks
stands for)

I just saw Dick pointing out legitmate errors that you were making and
you ignoring it. I had no intention (and still don't) of getting into
any kind of debate with you, but I do have a question ... why do you
feel debating Dick is pointless? He seems very logical in his analysis
and quite frankly much more in tune with all aspects of VP than you do.

TR

#27

Bob says that debating with mroejacks is pointless. I can
understand why Bob feels that way. How *dare* someone put
the fabulous, wonderful, and all-knowing Bob Dancer in his place!?

I guess that Bob never responded to my messages because he
thinks I am mroejacks, too! No, Bob, I am not mroejacks, but
I agree with everything he has posted. And, I'm not TR, either! LOL!

···

On 6/26/07, treyrivers88 <treyrivers88@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with mroejacks
> or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.)

LOL, anyone that agrees with mroejacks is the same person? I can
promise you that I am not mroejacks. I've only played one-eyed jacks
once in my entire life so there is no way I could be Mr. One-Eyed.
(Based on a recent post by Dick, I am assuming that is what mroejacks
stands for)

I just saw Dick pointing out legitmate errors that you were making and
you ignoring it. I had no intention (and still don't) of getting into
any kind of debate with you, but I do have a question ... why do you
feel debating Dick is pointless? He seems very logical in his analysis
and quite frankly much more in tune with all aspects of VP than you do.

TR

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

#28

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "treyrivers88" <treyrivers88@...>
wrote:

> Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with

mroejacks

> or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.)

LOL, anyone that agrees with mroejacks is the same person? I can
promise you that I am not mroejacks. I've only played one-eyed

jacks

once in my entire life so there is no way I could be Mr. One-Eyed.
(Based on a recent post by Dick, I am assuming that is what

mroejacks

stands for)

Yes, that is what it stands for. I developed a strategy for the game
years ago and have given it to several members of this forum
including Paladin, Jean Scott, Skip Hughes and Howard Stern (among
many others). I have also posted a strategy for Blackjack Bonus Poker
on this forum. To my knowledge I am the only one to ever provide it.
I have also done game analysis work for VP Pros including the late
(and most admired) Elliott Shapiro. I've also been involved in beta
testing VP products.

So much for Bob's claims that I am neither "knowledgeable"
or "respected".

One of the reasons I am well aware of the "usability" of VP
strategies is that I talk with some of the people who use my
strategies. The feedback is very telling. Almost no one thought my
format was to their liking (it was similar to VPSM which was the
standard at the time). However, each person had a different complaint
and since I gave them a software copy they often modified it to their
own liking. OEJs is probably the most difficult VP game there is. A
perfect strategy could take 1000 entries. I had to make many, many
compromises when I developed the strategy (and I've been rightly
chastised for some of them). I understand first hand that simplicity
and accuracy is a trade-off and one few people will ever agree on.

I just saw Dick pointing out legitmate errors that you were making

and

you ignoring it. I had no intention (and still don't) of getting

into

any kind of debate with you, but I do have a question ... why do

you

feel debating Dick is pointless? He seems very logical in his

analysis

and quite frankly much more in tune with all aspects of VP than you

do.

I think you just answered your own question :wink:

Bob elects not to debate me because he is hoping that others will
believe his assertions about me simply because his name is Bob
Dancer. He realizes debating me is a no win situation and hopes he
can bluff his way through this controvery. Not going to happen.

Dick

PS. Bob, if you're reading this, I haven't even touched on what I did
outside of VP. You know, little things like working for a multi-
billion dollar division of IBM where I was responsible for the
architecture and design of many products over the years. So, if you
want to continue the credentials "battle" just say the word.

#29

Thanks for the background information Dick. I had a sense you knew
what you were talking about and I couldn't understand why Bob was
ignoring you. I guess you're right, I did answer my own question.

Another question. Did you write perfect play code for One-Eyed
Jacks? If so, that is impressive because I don't think that game is
even available on the 2 products I own (Winpoker and Frugal VP). Is
OEJ still available? The 1 time I played it was at a casino in
Boulder City near the dam. (can't even remember it's name) This was
many years ago.

TR

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "treyrivers88" <treyrivers88@>
wrote:
>
> > Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with
mroejacks
> > or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.)
>
> LOL, anyone that agrees with mroejacks is the same person? I can
> promise you that I am not mroejacks. I've only played one-eyed
jacks
> once in my entire life so there is no way I could be Mr. One-

Eyed.

> (Based on a recent post by Dick, I am assuming that is what
mroejacks
> stands for)

Yes, that is what it stands for. I developed a strategy for the

game

years ago and have given it to several members of this forum
including Paladin, Jean Scott, Skip Hughes and Howard Stern (among
many others). I have also posted a strategy for Blackjack Bonus

Poker

on this forum. To my knowledge I am the only one to ever provide

it.

I have also done game analysis work for VP Pros including the late
(and most admired) Elliott Shapiro. I've also been involved in beta
testing VP products.

So much for Bob's claims that I am neither "knowledgeable"
or "respected".

One of the reasons I am well aware of the "usability" of VP
strategies is that I talk with some of the people who use my
strategies. The feedback is very telling. Almost no one thought my
format was to their liking (it was similar to VPSM which was the
standard at the time). However, each person had a different

complaint

and since I gave them a software copy they often modified it to

their

own liking. OEJs is probably the most difficult VP game there is. A
perfect strategy could take 1000 entries. I had to make many, many
compromises when I developed the strategy (and I've been rightly
chastised for some of them). I understand first hand that

simplicity

and accuracy is a trade-off and one few people will ever agree on.

>
> I just saw Dick pointing out legitmate errors that you were

making

and
> you ignoring it. I had no intention (and still don't) of getting
into
> any kind of debate with you, but I do have a question ... why do
you
> feel debating Dick is pointless? He seems very logical in his
analysis
> and quite frankly much more in tune with all aspects of VP than

you

do.

I think you just answered your own question :wink:

Bob elects not to debate me because he is hoping that others will
believe his assertions about me simply because his name is Bob
Dancer. He realizes debating me is a no win situation and hopes he
can bluff his way through this controvery. Not going to happen.

Dick

PS. Bob, if you're reading this, I haven't even touched on what I

did

···

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

outside of VP. You know, little things like working for a multi-
billion dollar division of IBM where I was responsible for the
architecture and design of many products over the years. So, if you
want to continue the credentials "battle" just say the word.

#30

This post explains everything. Now that we all know your
accomplishments maybe this thread can end. You didn't need a debate
with Bob, you went on and on and on and on just fine all by yourself,
IMO.

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "treyrivers88" <treyrivers88@>
wrote:
>
> > Harry, I'll be happy to debate this with you. (Debating with
mroejacks
> > or TR, likely the same person, is pointless.)
>
> LOL, anyone that agrees with mroejacks is the same person? I can
> promise you that I am not mroejacks. I've only played one-eyed
jacks
> once in my entire life so there is no way I could be Mr. One-

Eyed.

> (Based on a recent post by Dick, I am assuming that is what
mroejacks
> stands for)

Yes, that is what it stands for. I developed a strategy for the

game

years ago and have given it to several members of this forum
including Paladin, Jean Scott, Skip Hughes and Howard Stern (among
many others). I have also posted a strategy for Blackjack Bonus

Poker

on this forum. To my knowledge I am the only one to ever provide

it.

I have also done game analysis work for VP Pros including the late
(and most admired) Elliott Shapiro. I've also been involved in beta
testing VP products.

So much for Bob's claims that I am neither "knowledgeable"
or "respected".

One of the reasons I am well aware of the "usability" of VP
strategies is that I talk with some of the people who use my
strategies. The feedback is very telling. Almost no one thought my
format was to their liking (it was similar to VPSM which was the
standard at the time). However, each person had a different

complaint

and since I gave them a software copy they often modified it to

their

own liking. OEJs is probably the most difficult VP game there is. A
perfect strategy could take 1000 entries. I had to make many, many
compromises when I developed the strategy (and I've been rightly
chastised for some of them). I understand first hand that

simplicity

and accuracy is a trade-off and one few people will ever agree on.

>
> I just saw Dick pointing out legitmate errors that you were

making

and
> you ignoring it. I had no intention (and still don't) of getting
into
> any kind of debate with you, but I do have a question ... why do
you
> feel debating Dick is pointless? He seems very logical in his
analysis
> and quite frankly much more in tune with all aspects of VP than

you

do.

I think you just answered your own question :wink:

Bob elects not to debate me because he is hoping that others will
believe his assertions about me simply because his name is Bob
Dancer. He realizes debating me is a no win situation and hopes he
can bluff his way through this controvery. Not going to happen.

Dick

PS. Bob, if you're reading this, I haven't even touched on what I

did

outside of VP. You know, little things like working for a multi-
billion dollar division of IBM where I was responsible for the
architecture and design of many products over the years. So, if you
want to continue the credentials "battle" just say the word.

#31

I don't understand why people ask for this thread to end. Each time
they post something like "Now that we all know your accomplishments
maybe this thread can end" the thread just keeps on going! LOL!

It's silly because each of these people (who call for the end of the
thread) all want to be the last word! It's just funny to me, that's all.

And, to the people who are saying that they are tired of reading these
posts and wish it would end, I say, "why are you even reading these
messages in the first place?" It's not like you can't figure what the
message is about by reading the subject. Again, it's just funny to me!

···

On 6/26/07, michael turner <oneputt1109@verizon.net> wrote:

        This post explains everything. Now that we all know your
accomplishments maybe this thread can end. You didn't need a debate
with Bob, you went on and on and on and on just fine all by yourself,
IMO.

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

#32

One-eyed Jacks is available in a few casinos around Las Vegas (SantaFe
Station, Circus Circus, Sams Town, etc.). It was also available at the
Edgewater in Laughlin. I don't know if it has been removed with all the
changes. It was also available at the Majestic Star near Chicago, but
it sounds like it has also been removed there. The game also used to be
available in MS at the Grand Casinos. I haven't been there in years but
I've heard they were removed by HET. For years my main play was in MN
where it is found in many Indian casinos. This is where I lived and
worked.

I wrote two programs for the game. One computed the "near" perfect play
return. As you know OEJs is a difficult game and I had to make a couple
of compromies to speed up the analysis. My results came within .02% of
the now published return. It was good enough for me to decide it was
the game to play since 9-7 DB was the next best game available. The
other program I did was a single hand analyzer. This is the program I
used to create my strategy. I set up individual hands one at a time and
compared results. This is how I determined the strategy. I already had
a good feeling for the strategy from using the vpfreebie software (by
Steve Jacobs). It was the only program at the time that allowed OEJs to
be set up and practiced. It provided warnings on all errors and I had
no need to write another program to do the same thing.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "treyrivers88" <treyrivers88@...> wrote:

Thanks for the background information Dick. I had a sense you knew
what you were talking about and I couldn't understand why Bob was
ignoring you. I guess you're right, I did answer my own question.

Another question. Did you write perfect play code for One-Eyed
Jacks? If so, that is impressive because I don't think that game is
even available on the 2 products I own (Winpoker and Frugal VP). Is
OEJ still available? The 1 time I played it was at a casino in
Boulder City near the dam. (can't even remember it's name) This was
many years ago.

#33

Curtis wrote: I guess that Bob never responded to my messages because he
thinks I am mroejacks, too!

Hardly. You are easily distingushed from each other. But every post you
make that includes my name in it is negative in nature. To my knowledge
you've never found anything I've said or done to be praiseworthy.
Therefore I conclude that your mind is closed on the subject and I avoid
you.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#34

Curtis wrote: I guess that Bob never responded to my messages

because he

thinks I am mroejacks, too!

Hardly. You are easily distingushed from each other. But every post

you

make that includes my name in it is negative in nature. To my

knowledge

you've never found anything I've said or done to be praiseworthy.
Therefore I conclude that your mind is closed on the subject and I

avoid

you.

Bob Dancer

if all we are looking for is praiseworthy comments, let me suggest

you just look in the mirror and see your EGO

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#35

Well "Luke" I don't think misscraps was trying to have the last word, I
think she just honestly expressing fatigue with this tedious never
ending thread. The only part of this thread that has been remotely
interesting to me has been my suspicion that Linda Boyd has created
ficticious entities to promote her side of the story. I sincerely hope
I am wrong about that since it would be so incredibly lame. Though if
your brain reaches a high enough level of boredom then who knows what
theories can hatch. No wait there was one other thing in this brouhaha
that I found interesting. I liked the fact that Palidingaming (whom I
have always respected) stood up for Bob Dancer on this issue. I
thought it was interesting and meaningful since he was so harsh on him
during the C.P. downgrades. Oh and I suppose I was a little
dissapointed in Harry Potters inputs, though as usual I always love to
read his comments. It's just I think that Frugal Video Poker is an
excellent resource for a newbie. Still we might want to think about
changing the name of the group from VPFree to The Video Poker Edge by
Linda Boyd discussion group, heehee.

It's silly because each of these people (who call for the end of the
thread) all want to be the last word! It's just funny to me, that's

all.

And, to the people who are saying that they are tired of reading these
posts and wish it would end, I say, "why are you even reading these
messages in the first place?" It's not like you can't figure what the
message is about by reading the subject. Again, it's just funny to

me!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:

#36

Well, "markhaslem," you might be right. "misscraps" may not
have been wanting to get the last word. But, I think it's silly to
express fatigue with this tedious never ending thread. Why?
(Other than to get in the last word.) If she's that sick of it, she
can delete the posts without ever reading them.

This thread has been interesting to me for several reasons.
But, most interesting to me has been Bob Dancer revealing his
true personality. I think we all can agree that the Bob Dancer
we have experienced on this Group (not just this thread), is not
the same Bob Dancer that we see on television, nor the Bob
Dancer giving lectures in casinos. I'm guessing that Bob does
not belittle or demean his fellow VP authors during his classes.
(I've never been to one, so I don't know for sure.)

It just seems pointless for someone to post to the entire group
how bored, disgusted, tired they are about a thread. The people
in the Group have to be wondering why that person is even
involving themselves, if they don't want the thread to continue.

What dissapointed you about Harry Potter's posts?

···

On 6/27/07, markhaslem <markhaslem@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well "Luke" I don't think misscraps was trying to have the last word, I
think she just honestly expressing fatigue with this tedious never
ending thread. The only part of this thread that has been remotely
interesting to me has been my suspicion that Linda Boyd has created
ficticious entities to promote her side of the story. I sincerely hope
I am wrong about that since it would be so incredibly lame. Though if
your brain reaches a high enough level of boredom then who knows what
theories can hatch. No wait there was one other thing in this brouhaha
that I found interesting. I liked the fact that Palidingaming (whom I
have always respected) stood up for Bob Dancer on this issue. I
thought it was interesting and meaningful since he was so harsh on him
during the C.P. downgrades. Oh and I suppose I was a little
dissapointed in Harry Potters inputs, though as usual I always love to
read his comments. It's just I think that Frugal Video Poker is an
excellent resource for a newbie. Still we might want to think about
changing the name of the group from VPFree to The Video Poker Edge by
Linda Boyd discussion group, heehee.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
>
> It's silly because each of these people (who call for the end of the
> thread) all want to be the last word! It's just funny to me, that's
all.
>
> And, to the people who are saying that they are tired of reading these
> posts and wish it would end, I say, "why are you even reading these
> messages in the first place?" It's not like you can't figure what the
> message is about by reading the subject. Again, it's just funny to
me!

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

#37

The only part of this thread that has been remotely
interesting to me has been my suspicion that Linda Boyd has created
ficticious entities to promote her side of the story. I sincerely

hope

I am wrong about that since it would be so incredibly lame.

To be honest I think it is even more lame to make these kind of silly
accusations without doing any checking. Here's how you do it. Go to
the "search" box and put in the name of the author you are
questioning. Then click on the LAST post they made. If it pre-dates
this discussion then guess what?

Though if
your brain reaches a high enough level of boredom then who knows

what

theories can hatch. No wait there was one other thing in this

brouhaha

that I found interesting. I liked the fact that Palidingaming

(whom I

have always respected) stood up for Bob Dancer on this issue.

If I remember right that occurred BEFORE it was determined that Bob's
analysis had some serious errors. Of course, Paladin doesn't use
strategy cards in a casino and is probably not the authority on the
subject. In fact, without a massive study as I mentioned there really
is NO authority nor can anyone state how to trade-off simplicity vs.
accuracy.

I
thought it was interesting and meaningful since he was so harsh on

him

during the C.P. downgrades. Oh and I suppose I was a little
dissapointed in Harry Potters inputs, though as usual I always love

to

read his comments.

I always like the wizard's posts as well :wink:

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "markhaslem" <markhaslem@...> wrote:

#38

Hardly. You are easily distingushed from each other. But every post

you

make that includes my name in it is negative in nature. To my

knowledge

you've never found anything I've said or done to be praiseworthy.
Therefore I conclude that your mind is closed on the subject and I

avoid

you.

Bob, isn't this a little like the pot calling the kettle black? You
keeping making negative comments over and over.

Isn't it about time for that apology?

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

#39

When are you two going to pick out the furniture?? You sound like an old married couple!

Ted B

···

-----Original Message-----
From: mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:07 am
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "The Video Poker Edge" and Linda Boyd's Strategy Cards

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

Hardly. You are easily distingushed from each other. But every post

you

make that includes my name in it is negative in nature. To my

knowledge

you've never found anything I've said or done to be praiseworthy.
Therefore I conclude that your mind is closed on the subject and I

avoid

you.

Bob, isn't this a little like the pot calling the kettle black? You
keeping making negative comments over and over.

Isn't it about time for that apology?

Dick

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

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

#40

Who are you refferring to? Mr. One Eyed Jacks and Bob Dancer?

···

On 6/28/07, iamtedb@aol.com <iamtedb@aol.com> wrote:

When are you two going to pick out the furniture?? You sound like an old
married couple!

Ted B

-----Original Message-----
From: mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:07 am
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "The Video Poker Edge" and Linda Boyd's Strategy
Cards

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:
> Hardly. You are easily distingushed from each other. But every post
you
> make that includes my name in it is negative in nature. To my
knowledge
> you've never found anything I've said or done to be praiseworthy.
> Therefore I conclude that your mind is closed on the subject and I
avoid
> you.

Bob, isn't this a little like the pot calling the kettle black? You
keeping making negative comments over and over.

Isn't it about time for that apology?

Dick

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