--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
> > > > > > that I've exposed about AP's, the gurus, and anyone
else
> > who's main drive is to live a make-believe life in the world of
> video poker. They're all guilty of the same type things---over
and
over and over. What's fun (actually, it's sad) is when, after they
read the truth, they sometimes try desperately to create reasoning
of
> > their odd behavior to save face---exactly like RGM does here
time
> > after time
> > > > >
> > > > > The con continues ... using proven mathematical
techniques
is not "odd behavior", it is common sense.
> > > > There's an example of that selective interpretation again
by
a geek who feels the pain, while he comes out swinging blindly
based
> on a defensive posture developed by putting theory first before
> reality or anything else.
> > > I'll stick with the correct mathematical interpretation. You
can have the "because I won" snake-oil interpretation.
> > You'll stick with it, but you're on the wrong subject. Not
> surprising you'd get flustered here.
> Wrong again, little man.
Of course I am! Why, just from your irritated reaction one can
easily
tell you'd have a hard time living with yourself accepting the
truth
about any of your phoney beliefs.
Wrong again, little man.
>When you claim to have "exposed" APers you are claiming that the
math is wrong.
Hardly. I'm SHOWING how they're all so full of it and how easily it
is to spot all their contradictions--giving full support to my
statements that they seriously lack any amount of credibility when
they boast about their results.
LMAO, so many words, so little content. You have yet to "show" squat.
I understand how it hurts one of
their devout subjects. You'll get over it....but only when you quit
the game or submit that my strategy is far superior to the sold one
you follow so very blindly.
I wonder if little Robbie really thinks ANYONE could read this BS and
believe a single word. He claims that he is "SHOWING" something and
provides not a single bit of evidence to support this assertion. We
all know this is his fantasy world, but come on, he must know it too.
>Like I said, I'll stick with the correct mathematical
interpretation. Now, who's the "flustered" one?
Still you. That never changes.
Da plane, da plane.
> > >This, from a post today by the Queen on vpFREE (and it's just
an
> > example--this stuff, if you're a regular reader of mine, runs
> > > rampant all over the Internet forums by a really not all that
> many people): "Smoke in the casino is our main problem now - and,
> > > therefore, we really limit our gambling. Many days we never
> > > enter a casino or we're just in and out to collect Free Play.
The days we do play we limit the number of hours we are breathing
in
> > smoke. We are helped in that respect because we both get very
tired anyway when we play video poker and usually want to quit
after
two hours - 3 at the most."
> > >I will admit that smoke is my number 1 dislike of VP play. If
a
> > > smoker sits near you it can be bad. Simple solution, move to
> > > another machine. Also, the air is usually much better in the
AM. That is when I play.
> > > > Moving does nothing to improve what you're breathing in
> > > You've got to be kidding. Are you really this stupid. The
density of the smoke particles is FAR higher if you are in the near
> vicinity of the smoker.
> > Since the whole place is permeated with stale smoke already,
>
> Please provide evidence to support this assertion. What? You have
> none? Not one single fact? What a surprise.
so you've trained yourself to ignore this situation---big surprise.
Try this. Go to a casino when you make-believe the air is
better...was it in the morning? (How many little smoke fairies did
it
take to clean the place out anyway?).
They're called filters. I supppose you need to invent some fairies
with all the fantasies you have.
Keep clear of fresh smokers if
that's at all possible. Stay for your usual 2-3 hours of sickness.
then go home, lay the clothes down for an hour while you go on one
of
your exercize binges. Come back and smell the roses. You'll have
all
the proof you need to know you can't talk yourself into that
fantasy
any longer.
Sorry, but I've yet to notice any significant odor. I can easily
smell it on a smoker that sits next to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm
not saying these filters will COMPLETELY eliminate all of smoke, only
that it reduces it to a tolerable level. You know, equal to or better
than the air in Phoenix.
> Most casinos have invested in high quality air filtration systems
> that provide reasonably clean air. Naturally, it is continually
> impacted by current smokers, but don't think you can make these
> unspported assertions (lies) and get away with it.
Oh, I see. Following Bellagio and Wynn
are Sam's Town,
Not good because of all the smokers.
the Hard Rock,
Don't go there.
Arizona charlie's,
Don't go there anymore, but I could see how it could get bad when it
was crowded.
Stations,
Pretty good, but I don't play there very much. Check out:
http://www.trane.com/Commercial/DocPage.aspx?Item=93
and Fiesta?
So so, but generally pretty good when I play.
HAHAHA--you're making this a
little too easy today.
Please provide evidence to support your assertions. Do you have any
air quality studies?
> > just because you're not of itching eyes and scratchy throat due
to live smoke, you are in EXACTLY the same precarious position.
> Lie.
Denial.
Lie. Still awaiting those air quality studies.
> > Ever sit on an airplane where smoking is allowed 'up front' (or
on the other side of the aisle in some foreign airlines) and you're
supposed to be safe from it 'back there'?
> Being in a confined airplane is about the same as being next to a
> smoker in a casino, except you can't move away. This is also why
> flying is arguably the best way to pick up a cold or the flu.
That's your opinion, but the airlines for years didn't believe that
was the case. Same as the casinos. That's one of the reasons they
use
so smoking won't be banned. "We have excellent filtration systems"--
the same as the airplanes used to claim.
However, the size is substantially different which means you aren't
being exposed to the same air over and over again.
And they did have the
systems. They simply don't work due to obvious limitations compared
to a large casino. The only thing that does work is the highest-
tech
filtatrion systems ALONG WITH very high ceilings.
Once again we agree, twice in one day. This is a milestone. Amazing
what can happen when Robbie sticks with the facts. However, let me be
a little more accurate. The quality of air will improve incrementally
based on the air flow dynamics, the amount of filtration and the
amount of smoke being input into the system.
> > > > and what's attacking your lungs and body inside already
> corrupted casinos. This concept of going to another machine
and/or
bringing little fans along to whoosh away second-hand smoke is a
simple attempt at doing something that makes one FEEL good rather
than IS good
> > > I think just about anyone NOT perpetrating a con would find
this statement to be hilarious. Anything that reduces the offendng
> > > particles helps. PERIOD. It doesn't eliminate the problem,
just
> as a nice breeze in Phoenix or LA doesn't eliminate the air
quality
> problems.
> >
> > And would we ever expect someone who's never going to learn his
> > lesson at this stage in life to agree with ANYTHING that might
put a damper on his addiction?
>
> I didn't disagree that smoke is a problem, it's just not as bad a
> problem as Robbie would love to make it. I wonder what Robbie
used
to say in the early 90s when he was playing all the time.
I've already addresses that in public. I was dumb about it all, and
for the same reasons you appear to be: I didn't want to stop going
to
casinos and i wanted to spends hours in them whenever i could. All
to
feed a bad habit.
Well, one thing hasn't changed, he's still "dumb about it all".
> > That's a compliment, especially here.
>
> Proof of your con is a compliment? I'd didn't think you'd see it
that way.
I see 3 little letters that I've already forgotten what you said
they
mean. It remains a compliment to see you downsized into doing that
as
a response.
Not surprised you've "forgotten". That's a theme with you.
> > > > >First, he mentioned the free drinks (just say no, I do).
> > > > Do you see any warnings going out by any agencies saying to
> quit drinking because it absolutely causes death to you and most
> > > probably to others who may be nearby when you're drinking?
Abuse is one thing, but we're not talking about that here.
> > > I'm just relating what the author said, you brought it up.
> >
> > Either way, it's good to nip your inference in the bud before
you
> get out of control with the self-justifications again.
>
> I think most experts will agree that drinking can be a big
problem.
> Like so many other things, it doesn't have to be a problem. Just
like gambling doesn't have to be a problem.
We're back to that convenient but absolutely wrong theory again?
Drinking CAN be a problem if abused as I said.
I agree.
But as I've also said
people can realize a health benefit if taken moderately. There's
NOTHING about going to a casino every day that's moderate.
Of course there is, you continue to deny it because that would put a
dent in your con.
There may
be to you, but that's because you have to live with it and can't go
without. To the rest of us normal people on the outside, your
lifestyle constitutes somewhere no one should or would ever want to
go.
The hypocracy is amazing.
> > Unimportant since caffeine is no different than black licorice
to
> me.
> Not surprising, you choose to decide what IS a problem based on
how
> it fits into your con.
Maybe if you answered the question and didn't put up the defensive
shield so fast you would have made sense. What's bad about caffeine?
That varies with each medical report, currently, it has been linked
to GERD which is linked to esophageal cancers. The next medical
report may say the exact opposite. It may turn out that an expresso
or chocolate bar is more hazardous to your health than years of
second hand smoke (although I doubt it).
> > >then he mentioned playing for hours (easy to limit oneself to
2-
3 hours a day)
> > > > C'mon. That's a cop out and attempt at justifying what you
do-
- and is dangerous for anyone reading here who likes to side with
> you. I've known Elliot for 5 years. At your rate, that's over
45,000 hours (or 1900 FULL DAYS!) of subjecting oneself needlessly
to
the poisons inside a casino.
> >
> > > But not near as long as living in Phoenix each and every day,
and you can multiple that number by 10.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> That about sums it up.
I hope so. your comment made no sense.
Yes it did. Is your reading comprehension really this bad?
> > Yes, the casinos here are just as bad as the casinos over there
> > for air or anything else. But comparing city air to casino air
is
> > supposed to have meaning?
> Yes, give us a comparison. Come up with a fact for once in your
> miserably life.
I think you's agree city air anywhere in the world--even over
Cairo,
Bangkok or Mexico City is far better to breathe than the stuff
inside
Arizona Charlie's.
The big problem with your reply was that it started with "I think".
That doesn't make it a fact (but at least you stepped down from your
normal blatant assertions). However, until such a time that you
decide to present some facts you will continue to look foolish. The
next time I have a chance I may see if I can find any air quality
studies. You may be right, or, you may be wrong.
If you don't, it's you who needs to get educated
with facts because common sense just doesn't apply to you.
I already know that you have no "common sense", just a con.
> > I think you're once again trying to take
> > the sting out of what facts you're seeing before your eyes. Who
> > wouldn't if they were involved in such a quagmire as you?
>
> Looks like denial to me. Of course, it wouldn't fit your con very
> well if casino air came out to be JUST as clean as the air you
> breathe each and every day.
So much reaching....so little room. And so stupid. Ever heard of
smoking/no smoking seating areas? Does one have better air quality?
Now we're getting somewhere. By simply sitting in a different part of
a building can improve the air quality. Now, do you understand why
moving away from smokers is effective?
Ever hear of joggers choosing to jog inside a smoke-filled
building,
I don't think anyone would chose a "smoke-filled building" for any
activity. Is this right after a fire was put out?
> > > > You think that type of 'limiting' makes sense?
> > > Everything we do has risks. The body has a way of removing
the
> > > poisons or we all would have died from air pollution long
ago.
> Just driving a car is far more hazardous. Especially the
pollution
> from some of those old muscle cars. Did you give that up?
> >
> > I don't suck the air in from the exhaust out of my big-cubed
cars.
> I see, it doesn't mingle with the air in your garage while the
smoke in a casino does mingle with the air there. LMAO.
Ever do one of your geek-studies on the amount of air outside vs.
that inside a building? LWLN!
As usual you're missing the point.
> > The intelligent sane person would know enough to limit the
risks
> when and where possible.
> QED. It appears what's good for the goose isn't good for the
gander.
Again, ?? If you're implying that you do that by going to the
casinos
in the morning, you're making a complete fool out of yourself--no
need for me to do it for you this time.
I simply try to reduce my exposure. Like I said, every activity has
its' risks. I used your working on cars to make that very point. In
many cases we don't even know which risks are worse, as in using
caffeine.
> But you also know food is likely the number one problem for
> most video poker players, because one glance at ANY locals joint
and what you get an eyeful of are obese, out-of-shape fat people
working out their frustrations on the machines,
> > > Or, just about any mall, restautant, bar, etc.
> > Not at all. Malls and most bars/restaurants are bustling with
> > energetic and healthy-looking young people
> First of all, casinos don't allow anyone under 21.
Neither do bars in most states.
"Malls and most bars/restaurants " ... last I checked they still let
the under 21 crowd into malls and restaurants. What depths will
Robbie reach to try and save face? ...
>Second, most gamblers are older since the younger age groups do
not
have as much disposable income.
You sure got that one right. DISPOSABLE income! Right down the
drain
thru the suck of the casino vacuum.
Thank you. We agree again. Of course, you love to fantsize this
includes APers as well, but it actually encompasses your "other
folks", the 99%+.
>Finally, if you were intelligent and compared similar age groups,
you'd see exactly what I'm saying is true.
Older people in a casino is no big revelation.
And, increased weight is more common among older people. My point
exactly. It looks like you are agreeing with me.
> > > > >While I think it is much harder to avoid these things on 3-
4
> > days LV trips, it is easy for a local.
>That's what it seems (although I also see where visitors
would 'binge' on such a trip) but by and large they (the
> locals) don't tell me that. Generally I hear them proudly say how
they go to the gym, they workout, etc. etc., and if they really did
all that they claim to do most of them would be up for body-
beautiful
> awards.
> > > Many are healthy and in good shape.
> > And many more that that are not--even though they say they work
out.
> Just like everywhere else.
> > > > Example: Bob Dancer has always been surprisingly open and
> honest about his circumstance in his columns--maybe because he's
a
> > public figure, but I'll give him the benefit here. I've read
> numerous coulmns where he mentions going to work out with his
trainer or other such healthy activities, yer he's not getting
slimmer, and in fact, has recently voiced displeasure at his
balooning weight. Anyone care to guess what the root cause of that
is? And the workouts? What's that style person more serious about--
the vp that's taken over a life, or being trim?
> > > It has nothing to do with VP. It has to with priorities.
> > Personally, watching TV is my downfall when it comes to eating.
> > Playing VP is actually a positive factor in my weight control.
> >
> > Then you're an extreme exception to the rule,
>
> Lie, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support
your continued assertions.
You don't need written evidence when it comes to the sickly traits
of
regular gamblers.
QED. Robbie finally admits that all he presents is his opinion but
keeps asserting it as fact. Of course, we already knew that.
>Also, living a poor lifestyle is not limited to LV, it can be done
> anywhere.
> Sure, but the temptations are much more prevalent in such a
> city. They don't call it sin city for nothing.
> >
> I suspect the general population of LV is not much different from
most other large cities. Do you have any facts to back up your
> assetion? Personally, I believe the inner city areas of most
> major cities are the unhealthiest places to live.
> >
> > Facts about the temptations of LV being more pronounced and
> tempting (and socially demeaning)than any other US city? I'm not
looking up this and wasting time when the tag as it being "Sin
City"
speaks for itself. We all know that label is true. Why fight it---
just because you have a home there?
> Still no facts.
I was waiting for you to support youe "I suppose" with a fact or
two,
but as usual, none even appear.
That's one BIG difference between you and me. I use "I suspect", "I
believe", etc. to state an opinion. You state your opinions as facts.
>LV likes to advertise itself to others as sin city, gambling -->
sin, got it? Do you believe all the advertising you see?
Um, it's slightly more than 'advertising'. Are you certain you get
out when you're there other than to casinos?
You don't think there's sin in other cities? "Are you certain you get
out" at all?
> Interestingly, as gambling has spread around the country it is no
> longer viewed as a sin by nearly as many people that once thought
it was. It is now viewed as entertainment.
I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but gambling isn't the
only
reason LV has that moniker!
OK, tell me just how many people would visit LV if there was no
gambling and the casinos that provide it.
> > > But all is not so comforting (and it kinda makes you not want
> > > to go out and be mesmerized by all the slick marketing going
on
> any longer) when you do a little homework. From an article by her
> > within the past month on LVA: "Brad and I wondered if Steve
Wynn
> > would market to locals, especially if they looked like they'd
give some high play. So as soon as we heard of a good sign-up bonus
(two meals at the wonderful buffet), I got my players card and we
played our fingers to the bone, putting through $91,000 coin-in
that
same day. About a month later, the Wynn put in some better VP
machines, so Brad signed up (getting two more free buffets) and we
put through $36,000 on his card."
> > > Speaks for itself, doesn't it.
>Yes, it says exactly what it says. They went to two high-end
buffets.
> > What, playing $91,000 for 2 buffets? That is a sensible fact?
Maybe if they were served on Mars and it included the trip.
> Or, the EV of the play made it worthwhile ...
Read on (oh. I see you conveniently deleted the EV portion of the
expose'). She has no idea what the EV of ANY play is, and even with
her over-valuation-of-actual-comp method of accounting, she
couldn't
have even made an error and resulted with a positive play there.
EV can have more inputs than the pure numerical value of the game.
For example, Jean is a writer and the EV could contain several
columns worth of information. It may not have been worth it to me, or
you, but it may be enough for others. Intelligent people don't try to
force their own "value" system on others.
> While we don't know how much those buffets really cost them,
> > that's hardly the issue. Working fingers "to the bone" doesn't
> > exactly relate to her portrayal to her adoring fans as being
> > restrained or her "we really limit our gambling" statement now,
> does it.
> > > Not surprising that you'd jump on a statement that was most
> likely put in for dramatic effect and had nothing to do with what
they did.
> > That's all she is is dramatics, so everything's in the same
> category for her. "Had nothing to do with what they did"? That
reeks of you now attempting to justify THEIR foolishness on top of
your own.
> QED. You'd say anything to further your con.
So confirm for me with fact, your assertion of "Had nothing to do
with what they did"!
I said "most likely", I didn't assert it as a fact. I wasn't there,
were you?
> > >For Jean and Brad to reach $90K playing $5 VP at 600
hands/hour
> > would take 3 hours.
> > Yeah, but what about the other 2 people they took along and
gave
> the cards to...Why not say it just took 1.5 hours each to lessen
the blow?
> I think Robbie is feeling a little stupid again. He didn't take
the
> time to think this thru and made a big point out of what is
really
> nothing. LMAO.
Nothing to you, of course. You've got the same disease she has.
Yup, I enjoy the benefits of AP just like Jean. Only your little con
forces you call it a disease.
You're just irritated that I'm bringing up a scenario that you live
every day you're there. I understand the disruption it causes you
though. Really, I do.
No, you still think everyone must fail like you did. You really are a
pathetic loser. Looking for an excuse that just doesn't exist and now
perpetrating a con to try and save face. Pathetic really is too soft
a word to describe little Robbie.
> > >Tell us how many nice meals you have when you take your
monthly
> > >gambling trips.
> > > Almost every meal is gourmet since I wouldn't go if I didn't
> treat myself properly. But I eat one meal a day when anywhere in
> Nevada, and generally it's at night.
> >
> > > So, you are no different than Jean. What a surprise.
> >
> > Wrong. 100% wrong, and that was REALLY a putdown.
Congratulations! I would NEVER play for a meal, casino status, or
to
research how the comp system is approached. If the food is comped I
say OK. If not I have no problem paying for it. It's called casino
discipline, and controlling how and what you do....and why.
> More babbling. You both gamble, you both go to nice casino
> restaurants. No difference I can see.
I play once a month...maybe for 4 hours on average. She's like you
or
worse. And she blames all her woes on the old guy who lives with
her.
I only eat in nice restaurants, and I don't normally do buffets
anywhere. She had a facelift. I'm having the operation on my left
foot. But she is a better gaming marketing person than I.
OK, a few differences, but pretty close.
> > >By the way, you should eat your bigger meals earlier in the
day,
> > >it's healthier.
> > Again, not true. I don't believe that even if I lived the
typical
> > life of others. You take in 2000 calories in the morning, at
noon, or just before bedtime and you're going to burn off the exact
same amount you do anyway.
> So now you're claiming to know more than established dieticians.
Why am I not surprised.
I don't deal with 'dieticians'. All Doctors I've talked to on the
subject have never been able to refute what I say,
LMAO. ... Dr. Robbie, you're wanted in the rectal exam room ...
someone found a head that looks a lot like yours ...
and since the
subject is a pet peeve of mine it comes up often. There are 2
Doctors
in the neighborhood that I play tennis with who were tongue-tied
when
i brought it up. Drs. mostly say that's interesting--might be true.
Now you can have a shot at the title by explaining exactly why your
dieticians think I'm wrong. I'm a picture of health, and I
subscribe
to it wholeheartedly.
Denial.