--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "optdouble" <mworcester@>
wrote:
> > > Thanks, Rob. Finally a clear explanation that we can all
> > > understand. Although we will be probably see a bunch of
replies
> > > talking about how this is "illegal" and "wouldn't be
allowed".
> > That's because it IS illegal ... not to mention, casinos have
> nothing to gain. They already have the edge in almost all games.
Why would they risk losing their lucrative gambling business?
> Blah blah blah---same old rant with the same old tune of geek-
denial attached.
Looks like the facts did it again. Stopped Robbie cold.
Brrrrr....yup it's really cold here in Phoenix tonight! If little
dicky had any facts for a change I'd dance the jig. All I see is
whining like "gee, it's illegal because I don't do it" and "casinos
have nothing to gain because I don't get that part of it". Truly, a
weeny whiner!
> > > Do
> > > you really trust the casinos that much??? After minimally
> > > complying with the regulations, you should expect them to try
and
> > > take every dollar that they can in any way humanly possible.
> >
> > Well, first off, this would NOT be "minimally complying with
the
> > regulations", it would be breaking the law.
>
> Which law---geek law?
NV law that doesn't allow machines to be modifed.
That's exactly why they arrive in true form just as I've explained
with the facts a thousand times. What? Doesn't fit into little
dicky's pipeline mind? Must be wrong!! Geek-law is right and everyone
else is wrong!!
> you've already been instructed on how the
> contracts are written, you don't want a personal education class
on
> contract law, and you clearly couldn't live with yourself if you
ever
> came to the understanding that what you believe in is not the way
it
> is. Does the words 'little dicky's foolish' make any sense to
you??
Still no contracts involved, LAFman. Just NGC regs. However, this
is an entirely different regulation (reg 5). The one that doesn't
allow casinos to change any programming in the machines without NGC
approval. Let's hear you lie your way of of this one.
Right on cue! I've directed little dicky to look up more of the state
CONTRACT and he does EXACTLY as I tricked him into doing--flops out
another regulation from the CONTRACT. And this gets funnier. Then he
proceeds to step into it BIG TIME! He makes believe everyone against
his geek-logic is sayiung that the machines are changed after they
arrive at the casinos!! Can anyone possibly be more thick??
> I mean, who do you think is contributing the money to build all
of those huge casino hotels anyways....
> >
> > The players playing without an edge. Yup, the players who play
> > roulette, craps, BJ, stud, etc.; the players crowding into the
> poker rooms where the casinos takes a % of every pot; the players
> hitting the slots; the clueless VP players. I think we're up to
about 99% of casino customers. Was this really supposed to be an
> intelligent statement?
>
> There it is again....it's "the other guys" who lose and not
little dicky or any of the 'gurus'. Ho-Hum.... So wordy, yet so
nerdy....
So, you think these players all win? How do the casinos stay in
business?
Only a few intelligent players win, bozo. Like myself, Bob, and a
handful of people who write to me that all use some variation of my
play strategies. Fools like you & the gurus have no chance without
continuous extreme luck and you know it. The real money never leaves
with you. You make a bundle in 'phantom bucks' because you play like
frenzied addicts, but how many times are you laughed at when you walk
in the bank with a theoretical deposit??!!
> > > So, basically a bunch of "advantage players" playing the same
> > machine more or less ensures that the number of Royal Flushes
will be LESS than expected almost all of the time since the machine
will not be making enough money to get into a mode where "hot cycle
corrections" are needed.
> > Did I mention clueless?
> I certainly have, many times, and you fit that bill like a tee.
Poor try Robbie. This guy's just another yahoo who believes the
machines are controlled externally. Even you know better than that.
Externally? Now you making THAT up too?? Are you THAT sore about
losing here??
> > > In other words, enough idiot players would be needed to
> > > make the required profit on the machine to ensure that enough
> Royal Flushes could be "allowed".
> > I wonder if this guy even understands that this is beyond
secondary programming. This would require throwing out the RNG
altogether.
> More evidence that you've never kept up with modern technology in
> your own sorry field. Do you have to keep embarrassing me, as
your sponsor here??
Your repetitive words are getting more hollow all the time. Please
explain how the NGC code reviewers would miss all this extra code.
Please...PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself! It embarrasses me too you
know, as your sponsor here!
This would also suggest that somebody would be a COMPLETE IDIOT to
keep playing a machine after it just hit a Royal Flush,
correct? Because the machine would surely be overcorrected after
that point, and would probably be starting a bunch of new cold cycles.
> > So, I guess the two times I hit RFs within 15 minutes of each
other on the same machine is impossible. I'd better go back and
check those W2Gs and see if they are real.
> You just proved another point. That machine was in a hot cycle
that was required to correct it's hold percentage upwards. Thank you.
After giving me a double RF? Yup. That's right. This machine pays
double on RFs. 4.4% of the total payout. You better head back to
the drawing board, your lies are easily dismissed.
Oh, so now you add THAT in only after you struggled? And leave it to
you to make up that 4.4% number. It paid you what it paid you that
night and it had nothing to do with theory. You can't even enjoy the
times you win because you're so intertwined with analyzing every
aspect of the math models. No wonder you lead such a sour life!
> > > So, if a machine was running really cold while you were on
it,
> > would you be more inclined to try the "special plays" on the
theory
> that it might be getting ready for a "corrective hot cycle", or
would
> you wait to do them after a machine starts to go hit small pays a
> > couple of times after running cold for a while first?
> > That land in Louisiana is still for sale. Never mind that the
gulf is eroding several feet of it every day. As long as it's in
a "hot" cycle I'm sure you'll be OK.
>
> Now the dufus is a Geologist in addition to a geek! Can it
possibly get any funnier tonight?
If optdouble believes your con, he'd fall for anything. Maybe you
can sell him some of that land you bought last fall.
Yup, there's my answer! It just got funnier, and the joke CONTINUES
to be on little dicky!
> > > Also, it would stand to reason that correct "casino strategy"
for
> > VP machines would be to take over a machine which has just
busted
> out somebody after they placed a decent amount of credits on it,
in
> the theory that they have used up a lot of the cold cycles, and
the
> machine is then theoretically nearer to a corrective hot cycle.
>
> > I doubt that this is Robbie. Even he can see how idiotic this
> sounds. Did I mention clueless?
> Is that supposed to be a reply--or are you at a loss for words
> again?? At least you didn't make me laugh here too!
18 words this time ... A new record for you. I made my points and
you looked foolish trying to refute the facts with nothing but
idiotic babbling. How sweet it is ...
HAHAHA! I've even got you analyzing posts now! You are sooooo my
puppet. and being your own worst enemy is an added bonus that I thank
the Lord for every moment I'm on here!
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote: