--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > QED.
>
> > > ???
>
> > Did you already forget? I posted the meaning of this earlier
this
> > year.
>
> This time it's why. You tend to use it when you have no way out,
and
> you might want to just say that this time.
Nope,
More denial.....
I use it when your response PROVEs exactly what I've been
saying. Anyone who claims to "have a better way than
mathematically
proven approaches" is clearly a con man.
I have a better way, and it's way better than your way.
> > It is a denial of your lies, as usual.
>
> So you're actually denying that I lie? Miracle of miracles!
Take an English lesson and get back to me.
HAHA! Gotcha!
> > I
> > > > have asked you for proof the only thing you've come back
with
> is
> > > > stories of your own luck. I realize you do this to further
your
> > > con, it just won't play here.
> > >
> > > Hmmm....Seems strangely similar to whenever I challenge you
to
> > > provide proof of ANYTHING,
> >
> > I showed you a couple of proofs that progressions cannot
change
the
> > expectation of VP. What else are you looking for?
>
> You showed me selective theory, and that's as cloudy as it gets.
No, I showed you mathematical proof. The con continues ...
Selective theory....and a geek-laced interpretation at that.
>
> >Proof the VP pays over 100%?
>
> I already know that. I'm living 'proof'!
>
> >Proof that you're a liar and a fraud? I think I've nailed that
one
> pretty good.
Nope, over 100 proof!
>
> You like to 'think' what you say is right, but that's where
you're
> your own worst enemy.
Of course I am. Is that what winning makes me? Is that what
following
the mathematical approach makes me? RIGHT! And, since you claim
the
proven math is WRONG, that makes you a LAF.
Your own worst enemy.... Now what was LAF, cause I'm LAUGHing at you
constantly!
> > > > > Yeah, I've heard that claim before....how
I've 'rewritten
the
> > > math books' etc. etc.
> > > >
> > > > And you'll keep hearing it until you provide something
that
> > > actually refutes the mathematics.
> > >
> > > I have. My win record vs. theirs.
> >
> > First, that is not a proof.
>
> Ok. My recent win record vs. my past. Same thing. Firm
undeniable
> proof.
It has nothing to do with proof. You sound just like a snake oil
salesman claiming an elixir has done wonderous things for his
health.
Until you provide mathematical PROOF that your winning is anything
but luck, you will forever be labelled a CON MAN.
I can prove my dumps in the am are of a high quality make-up, and it
doesn't take MATH to prove it! So put down the slide rule and join
the real world. You'll like it. Math not required to live or excel
at anything.
>
> >Second, we've seen your claims, now show us "theirs".
>
> You're kidding, right? Bob Dancer just went on vpFREE and
said "I
had
> my 2nd best year ever in 2005". In other words, he lost a little
more
> in '05 than he did in his best year.
ROTFLMAO. You call that proof? Are you really this stupid?
Repeating him defines me for the moment.
> And did you get a kick out of
> the Queen blabbing how she's won 15 out of 16 years....and of
course
> the predicted caveat "And I only lost a little in that one
losing
> year"!!! Whew! What a relief. Now suckers everywhere can
continue
to
> buy their paraphernalia without worrying if 'it' really works or
not!
Hmmmm. Still not a single bit of PROOF, you are digging yourself
in
deeper and deeper. DO you actually think people will believe you
because you say it? You are making my job sooooooooo easy.
Read it for yourself, but I'll have to warn you: She is good at
making people throw up.
>
> Lastly, you might as well claim that when someone wins
> > the lottery, it means everyone can easily win. Nonsense. Of
course,
> > we all know that there is no proof and that this is part of
your
> con.
>
> You and your lottery and your megabucks. I have no idea what
you're
> saying, and i doubt if you do either.
You know exactly what I'm saying. Of course, if you admit the
obvious
TRUTH in my statement that is one more nail in your cons' coffin.
No idea still.
>
> > > > > Trouble is, a video poker hand is not a single
> > > > > mathematical event bounded by fact.
> > > >
> > > > There's a mouthful of BS.
> > >
> > > Whoaa! A little more than perturbed are we??
> >
> > Nope, just the facts, as usual.
>
> A new one. "A mouthful of BS" is now a fact. No supporting info
> needed. It's just fact. Yippie!
In your case it is a fact. Anyone who could utter the
phrase "bounded
by fact" is clearly full of BS. And, to say that a VP hand can not
be
described by math is utterly ridiculous.
Who said I don't agree that a vp hand can't be described by math? Of
course it can....in a geek classroom setting only.
>
> > > Math can be used to describe the
> > > > probabilities of any single hand of VP, the EV over time
or
any
> > > > number of other facts.
> > >
> > > More theory & nonsense. My morning dump has probabilities
too.
> >
> > Just the facts, as usual. Strange, how you never back up your
> claims
> > with a single fact. That's what con men do.
>
> But I did. My morning dump, like many others would attest to, is
a
> fact.
QED.
??
>
> > > > > It starts out that way, then is
> > > > > required to be defined by human factors.
> > > >
> > > > The con continues. What "human factors" would those be.
The
> fact
> > > that it is easy to play at 99.8% accuracy or higher?
> > >
> > > The fact that you make errors that you don't realize, which
> tosses
> > > the expert-play crap out the top floor window every time.
> >
> > Pure BS. I realize this is the ONLY thing you can hang your
hat
on,
> > since the math is infallible. Not surprising you'd claim APers
> makes
> > lots of errors but somehow you are not effected by them. The
con
> > continues ...
>
> On the contrary. My articles and site continuously tell how I
know
I
> must make a bundle of errors, which is why I play slowly.
Your saying that APers can't play slowly? What a crock.
APer's play however it itches their addiction best.
> But i also
> say that those errors, while many remain unknown, just as likely
give
> me better winners as they do losers.
You're saying it happens to you and not APers? This is ripe.
Who said that? I know what's ripe around here.
> You fools make believe you
> hardly make them, and if you didn';t say that then you wouldn't
have
> a mathematical leg to stand on--which is at best questionable
even
> before that rant.
So, according to little Robbie, if you follow his system the VP
fairy
will give you improved results when you make mistakes. Not only
that
he once again states that proven math doesn't apply in his little
corner of the world. This is hilarious.
Are you saying it's not possible to miss the 2-pr. and hold the 5's,
and get 2 more on the draw? Is this what you call Geek-Latin?
Precious.
>
> > > > > Last i checked, we are not
> > > > > machines, and not only are we fallible - the long-term
> applies only to machines.
> > > >
> > > > No. It applies to everyone, like it or not. Simply factor
the
> > error
> > > > effect into the EV. Then, use that number for your
personal
EV.
> > > Since
> > > > every hand is independent this applies to everyone no
matter
> > > whether
> > > > they play a progression, standing on their head, on 10
> different
> > > > machines or on one machine.
> > >
> > > More feel-good, self-confidence building nonsense developed
in
an
> > > introvert's world of fantasy. The only long term in video
poker
> is
> > > that of the life of the machine. Period.
> >
> > No one cares about YOUR definition of long term?
>
> Are you asking me? Many do, in fact, I just finished a very good
> article on the subject.
I doubt that very much.
??
> What matters to
> > anyone is their personal results. Over time these results will
> > approach the expectation of the games they play (error rates
> > included). That is part of the infallible math.
>
> If and when any players approach the expected return of the
games
> they play, it's because of luck and little else.
No, it's because it is exactly what the math predicts. Anyone who
claims otherwise is CLEARLY trying to perpetrate a con.
Since every winning hand is the total result of luck, math has zero
to do with it. Only a blind fool wouldn't see that.
> Every winning hand
> is the result of luck. No skill in the world will allow two pair
to
> come out when the deal button is pushed, and no amount of skill
in
> the world will allow a resulting FH to appear on the draw.
Period.
Not true (knowing you should hold two pair takes skill)
HAHA! What a joke. It's common sense and not skill, as you would
rather call it to feel better now that I've grounded you and your
dumb ideas.
and clearly
not true for 1000s of hands. This is where the con gets obvious.
You nuts or just plain stupid? Every hand is independent and has
zero to do with others. That's where you idiots always get clobbered
by me. First, you nervously dispute my statement while uncomfortably
agreeing that no hand has anything at all to do with any other (not
just you, they ALL have done it) then you transform it into a
scenario where you DO hitch the hands together in order to fulfill
your fantasy about it.
Sorry Charlie, you put your foot too far into your mouth not to
wonder how dumb it looks to others.
try the old illogic where if A implies B, then A implies C. Sorry,
but no one is going to buy this BS. The math predicts you will be
dealt a certain number of two pair hands over time. Since there
are 4
cards out of 47 that make it a full house, you will get the full
house 4/47 of the time ON AVERAGE. Luck has nothing to do with it.
It's all in the proven math.
More 'on average' BS that never happens except on every other
Tuesday night. That's how stupid you look.
> The cards come out, you're lucky. They don't, you're unlucky.
Simple
> as that.
The con man wants us to believe that proven statistical methods
for
predicting the outcome of random events somehow doesn't apply to
VP.
It's all part of his con. If he were to admit the obvious facts as
I
presented them then his con would be kaput.
I don't see you disputing my statement. Just the repititious tired
old rhetoric that might even make a math professor puke.
> > I verified the infallibility of the math by myself, after that
I
> > picked up more ways to increase my edge by listening to others
on
> > VPFree or in the casinos themsleves. I did buy winpoker and
VPSM
as
> > tools of the trade.
>
> HAHAHA! Tools of the trade.... What a joke!
Just the facts, as usual. How do you think APers keep the error
rates
so low? Is this why you failed as an APer?
Tools of the trade! HAHA! What a joke! That was so successful I
thought I'd try it again.
> They're nothing more than
> games to play on the home computer. And the fact that you bought
them
> only shows you're that much more of a pawn. But you DID listen
to
> people on vpFREE! Now THERE's something!!
It's called mining the information highway. There may be a lot of
worthless info but occasionly you find a nugget.
This is toooo funny. Squeezing info that means anything out of
people on vpfree is like trying to get words out of a frenzied
addict at a vp machine.
>
> > > > To be honest my results for last year were slightly below
> > > expectation
> > > > but close enough to result in a good win. So much for luck.
> > >
> > > And mine have been slightly above expectation for 9+ years
now.
> so
> > > much for taking maximum advantage of the luck afforded.
> >
> > Just as I've been saying, you've been lucky.
>
> But you dismiss the fact that my expectation was just that--to
be
> lucky.
So is the "expectation" of 90% of the clueless players that enter
a
casino. Even the ones playing slots and 72% payback keno. So, is
this
your proof that your system works? LMAO.
You're talking clueless. Most vp players are not educated--the ones
on vpFREE probably are, they just don't know how to use it until
they sign up for my e-newsletters. I'm smarter than all AP's and
just about everyone else who plays video poker. That's why I look at
luck as the only way to win.
> And the only reason I'm so far ahead id because of my
> discipline to stop at my win goals and stop progressing in
> denomination & volatility. The perfect plan. The perfect result.
The perfect BS. Some of those clueless are also ahead. And, this
proves what? ... Nothing.
It proves my winning at a near 90% clip means I have the perfect
plan. AP's sit and play thru jackpots all the time, and that's why
they're almost all ugly, fat, and disenchanted with their
lives....like you.
>
> > > > > It is also clear long-term strategy converts
> > > > > previously 'interested' players into frenzied addicts.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. My 2.5 hours a day is a real frenzy. This is why your
> lying
> > is
> > > > so obvious to everyone. I am a perfect example of the
opposite
> of
> > > > just about every one of your ridiculous claims.
> > >
> > > So says one of the world's biggest denyers. You're the only
> weirdo
> > > who could possibly be proud of being inside casinos for 2.5
> hours!!
> > > every day during your declining years!
> >
> > I already told you it wasn't "every day". You really are a nut
case.
>
> Look up above about 4 inches. You play 2.5 hours every day. Or
is 'a
> day' not what you want it to be this time.
Do you have clue? You don't even understand the difference
between "every" and "average". All I can do is wonder.
OK. so over a week's time you 'average' 2.5 hours a day. That's just
as sick as however else you want to juggle the times so you don't
appear too far gone here.
> > > > Nope. Lot's of people know just as much as I do. The math
> really
> > > > isn't all that difficult for anyone willing to spend the
time
> to
> > > > understand what it means.
> > >
> > > Yeah right. Perhaps you haven't been reading the circle-jerk
on
> over on vpFREE.
> >
> > None of that is required to be successful.
>
> You've finally come to your senses with these idiots.
I didn't say they were wrong, only that the information wasn't
required to be successful. They are absolutely right. Learning and
understanding what they are saying can help increase ones' chances
of
being successful.
First it's not required then it is. do I really make you struggle
THAT much?
> >
> > > I'm surprised you haven't gotten involved in all the
> > > nonsense. Or maybe I'm right and you really are nothing but
hot,
> > > misplaced air.
> >
> > Or, maybe I'm spending too much time proving you're a con man.
>
> Here's a hint: You're not doing a good job. Stick to what you
know.
Don't you wish.
> > > Since the start my message hasn't changed, I won more than
> > > all of their combined claims,
> >
> > Pleae provide proof.
>
> Simple. They lie. They have to in order to push product. I don't.
Once again the con man believes we will accept his statement as a
fact. Is he really that confused? So, he has no proof. Not
surprising
to anyone here.
> >
> > > I dole out the truth weekly
> >
> > Lie.
>
> Truth.
You just lied above.
Undeniable truths by RS up and down the line. 100%. Only a
pathological denyer wouldn't want to see it.
> >
> > > in the
> > > mnost respected and tenured publication in gaming history,
> >
> > Is that why it's free.
>
> There's more of your business savvy at work again I see! Revenue
> comes in 2 forms: Sales of the product, and sales of
advertising.
> Guess how they've continued to grow, in fact, they're building a
> beautiful building in Henderson right now! Then when you're in
town
> you can run over every Tues. and get your copy to read my column
> BEFORE the casinos do.
They all get advertising. Free still equates to less than "most
respected".
Here's another business 101 lesson for you to stay awake on tonight:
Something given for free has a higher advertising rate. OBVIOUSLY
McFLY! And for business who've proven to be successful for over 35
years, that's called respect and tenure.
> Did I tell you I have a protected source. Know what that is?
BS.
What's that?
> > Will little Robbie EVER provide one single fact to back up
these
> > rants? Nope. Why? Because the facts tell a completely
different
> story.
>
> What's a 'fact' in this circumstance.
Facts aren't related to cirumstance. They exist all by themselves.
Huh?
> Common sense says it all, and a
> check of private records allows me to be so bold in my
statements.
Of course, wink, wink, "private records" "says it all", wink, wink.
Any sense there--is that a nervous twitch or something? I'd have
been sued 50 times by now if people weren't afraid I'd bring their
REAL records and lives into public picture. Nothing but cowering is
all I get from them once I step up to their plates.
> You either believe in the sense of it all or you don't.
Sorry, but believing a con man never makes any sense, never will.
Did
any one else note that Robbie just equated himself to God? You
must "believe"? How idiotic does it get!
To some I am their vp Messiah. Beats Skip Hughes!
> Doesn't
> really matter. These people know what I'm saying is true
No doubt a few suckers out there will believe you. It's the same
way
Kevin Trudeau has made millions. It's still a con. I prefer to let
the facts determine what I do and most people feel the same.
> > > Hmmm.... Sure it's
> > > called "working". They do it because they can't win with
their
> > > fantasy gambling system.
> >
> > Provide proof of this statement.
>
> Again, common sense and a little detective work along with a few
> payoffs. You won't believe it because it would be like knocking
the
> wind out of you, but most do believe me.
I "won't believe it because" you have not provided a single shred
of
evidence to back you up. You know, those elusive things called
facts.
Have one of them sue me and you'll get your 'facts'! Whatr would
little dicky say then.....
> > Why don't you challenge Bob or Jean to a sizeable bet that you
> would win if they have lost all this time? Of course, I'm sure
they
> are not interested unless you make it very sizeable.
>
> They had their chances when offered to go in WITH AS MANY AP's
AS
> THEY could muster in a $640k bet when the radio jock walked away
on
> proof of winning - both ways - with his tail tucked firmly
between
> his legs. And Bob in 2001 made me go all the way to LV with a
$57,200
> cash bet only to back out at the last minute. What a waste of
time
> THAT was. You yourself have scrambled away in your array of
escape
> routes and loopholes. No one will stand up to me, so my official
word
> on it today, as requested/required by my publisher, is not to
accept
> or get involved with any more side bets because no one will go
the
> distance with me. That part's over, and I've firmly established
my
> ranking. I'll still play tennis and bowl you, because those are
> different events not involving my reputation of being the best.
So many words but no proof. I asked for you to bet them that they
have lost, not you have won. So, let's see you do it. You've
stated
they have lost, now here's your chance to get the proof.
HELLO! The bet goes both ways McFLY!! HELLO!! Are you really there?
> > They don't "promise" winning. Show one example where they
promise
> > everyone will win.
>
> Oh, I've done this SOOO many times over the years, and I'm not
> looking for the articles any more. You should have kept up with
all
> this when you were starting to become addicted to the game.
Translation: no proof ... again. Are we seeing a trend?
Or maybe that you aren't the clever Internet geek you portray
yourself to be.....
> >
> > > > No, it is THE POINT. I have nothing to gain one way or the
> other.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Those who have a neurosis about a subject HAVE to
carry
on
> > at the risk of losing their minds.
> >
> > Sorry, but this idiotic response is about as lame as it gets.
Still
> > wating for just one little fact.
>
> It does affect your mind. That's very obvious.
And waiting ...
> >
> > > That is your gain--a defensive one.
> > > You're trying to save your sanity by operating within a
world
of
> > make believe.
> >
> > Of course you have to claim something to keep the con going.
Answer
> > this ... How is it that I keep on winning in the real world?
My
> luck
> > is at or just below the mathematical expectation but I'm still
> ahead.
> > I've played around 4 million hands so I'm clearly beyond any
> > hypothetical luck factor. So much for your "make believe" BS.
>
> First, you should be ashamed to divulge you've played 4 million
> hands.
Nope, not in the least. Admittedly 3-play increases those numbers
faster than single line.
Admittedly, you are a very sick person who's squandering away what's
left of his declining years.
> That only further certifies how nuts you are. If you're ahead
> and you keep winning, then it's because of very good luck and
little
> else.
I see, you're still claiming the proven math doesn't work. But, I
just showed you that it does work and I was a little on the
unlucky
side of the mean. Your con is so obvious.
> > > You
> > > > have a lot invested on your con. Sorry, the facts have a
way
of
> > > > getting you into trouble.
> > > >
> > > > > What's the difference to you, a
> > > > > nobody, WHAT happens.
> > > >
> > > > My point exactly. All I'm interested in is that facts get
> > portayed
> > > > accurately.
> > >
> > > Then you ought to study my articles even more than you do
now.
> > > Accuracy at its finest.
> >
> > Why would I study your BS. You can't even provide ONE single
fact
> to back up anything that you've said here. You are a LAF.
>
> The facts are there just as they have always been here. You
can't
> and won't see them because it would put your theoretical life on
> tilt. Simple as that.
I can't see any because you NEVER provide one.
> > > HA! Typical giddy response---until you take your next
beating
of
> > > course.
> >
> > I've had plenty of beatings and I'll have plenty more. I've
also
> had
> > plenty of big wins and I'll have plenty more. When all is said
and
> > done I am way ahead. That's what AP is all about.
>
> I wonder....with all this bragging tell us why you don't play at
> higher denominations.
Two reasons: 1) The better plays are at the lower denoms.
No they're not. I know of 3 103+%er's in LV right now at $5 and
above. And they're always somewhere. You just go to the wrong dumps.
When I can
get a 2% edge, why play at 1% or less. 2) I don't need the money.
> The positive EV is there moreso than on 25c &
> 50c if you know where to go. I've got a good idea, but let's
hear
> your side after you have a few hours to think something up.
It appears you already knew part of the answer. I will consider
moving up in denom if the right situation comes about. So far, it
hasn't happened (except for the $1 FPDW at ACD last fall).
And you call yourself a true AP? you don't even know what's what on
the streets of your own city!
> >
> > > You forgot that it's first and foremost called GAMBLING, and
> > > that's what builds those big joints people go in all the
time.
> >
> > Those who chose to gamble without an edge. Are you really this
> slow?
> > You need to get aound more and see how poorly some people
gamble.
>
> Yup, right on cue. It's "the other guys" who don't know what
they're
> doing, and it's "the other guys" who lose and build the casinos.
That's right. You didn't answer the question.
All you'll do is deny and say it's "the other guys". My purpose here
is to irritate you when you talk funny and watch you agonize over
how I'm able to manipulate you.
> > > But oh
> > > no!...not little dicky!! It's "the other guys" who pay for
all
> > that!
> >
> > That's right. The 99%+ who don't know they could have an edge
or
> > don't know want to put in the effort to have one. When my wife
and
> I
> > played at the Indian casino there was only ONE other person
that
> knew
> > expert play strategies for the ONLY positive game, and he got
it
> from
> > me. That makes 3 of us in a casino with hundreds, if not
thousands,
> > of gamblers. I think even little Robbie can do the math here.
PS.
> > He's ahead for the year too.
>
> Yada yada lalala! More self-confidence-building baloney....so
much
so
> that we can now build a sandwich out of it!
Just the facts, as usual. You really should walk around a casino
once
in awhile and see how the vast majority of gamblers play. It would
prove my point in just a few minutes. On my last trip I sat next
to a
women playng two coins (1$). There is a bank of 20 coin nickel
machines with a progressive RF that would take the same bet size
and
return over 1.5% better. This is typical and why casinos make so
much
money. Of course, she played so poorly whe would have lost no
matter
what she was doing. I've also seen people playing 5 coins on a 10
coin quarter machine when a 5 coin machine was right next to it.
I've
also seen them ask why they didn't get $1000 when they hit a RF.
Once
again, this is how the casinos make money.
> > > Don't fret little dicky. It could happen to you someday. In
fact,
> > the
> > > more you go to casinos and destroy those 2.5 hours a day,
the
> > closer
> > > you'll get to being UNABLE to travel to them any longer.
> >
> > Are they installing road blocks? Robbie is really digging deep
now.
>
> Just check out the path Elliot took. Amen. Maybe you'll get into
your
> 80's if you choose to listen to me.
Let's see, I just read in the obits about someone who died in a
car
accident, one might suggest you stop working on cars,
How far will you make believe in order to look only like a regular
fool? Tell us, did your 'obit' say how fast his car was going in the
garage??
> > > > > > Just so you won't get too worried, I'm coming back to
LV
> soon
> > > > > enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously. You'll use some excuse like "Gotta check the
place
> > out-
> > > -
> > > > I
> > > > > think I left the stove on" or "We better go on down and
make
> > sure
> > > > > everything locked up properly".
> > > >
> > > > You can keep trying, but I doubt you'll ever figure out
the
> real
> > > > reason.
> > >
> > > No problem. To chase the sucker promos you get in all that
junk
> > mail.
> >
> > Strike one.
>
> Never. You'll go to the ends of the earth to get back to LV to
play
> those promos. Regardless what you tell yourself or anyone else,
> that's the primary reason.
Still waiting for you second attempt ...
I got it right on the first. Addits are addicts, and their lives are
first and foremost controlled by gambling.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote: