I apologize deeply for the post above. Really poor on my part. It should read, "whose wife gives better ****." Since there's just two of them, the proper grammar is "better."
Printable View
I apologize deeply for the post above. Really poor on my part. It should read, "whose wife gives better ****." Since there's just two of them, the proper grammar is "better."
What really is the problem is that there are DOZENS of people who read these threads and do not participate in the discussions because they view it as a battle between Rob and Arc. I know, I get the emails. I never intended these forums to be a private battle ground.
redietz: a forum on **** might get me a lot more traffic!!!
No question--it would be mine redietz. First off, arci's wouldn't bother doing that given what he did to help her into being what she is today. Then of course, one would have to be able to move around a little :)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
No thanks. I've been on both sides of the coin and am confident enough to not have to prove anything. This is a free country, so far, and I'm thankful I was able to try both ways and use my freedom of choice. I'm also grateful that Rob was confident enough to share his knowledge freely. I am fortunate enough to have literally SEEN and EXPERIENCED the programmable differences in machines the past 10 years. When I first saw Rob's opening story to his book-sweeping a hand and hitting a Royal-I was at first skeptical. I've done it several times and hit 4 A's w/kicker, a Royal on a 50 cent machine, etc. And these things aren't programmed? I don't really care about anything else but learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If arci believed in reality as being the barometer then he'd understand what you're saying. But because you don't bring your math book or any theories to the table, he doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. He does, however, get a tummy ache if you ask him about his next family vacation--or how bright a future he sees once he reviews all his own statistics and probabilities. Yes, some things do end up on the wrong side of the gamble.
And so goes love.....
Too many serious VP topics have been hijacked by forum participants who find it necessary to perpetuate their childish feud. Don't feed the trolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
This morning I received the quarterly bill for operating these Forums. I seriously thought about not renewing and pulling the plug. There is too much garbage and not enough serious discussion.
Seems to happen all the time. I do appreciate your efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, I posted a thread about the Riviera's $1000 loss rebate promotion that should have been interesting to you if you're going to LV anytime soon.
I have to agree about the garbage. People claiming stopping at a particular time can change their expectation are spouting complete garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It bothered me more that some posters would call another "dufus" while others make reference "illnesses."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I just returned from a visit to nearby Caesars Windsor. Usually, I plan on playing a few hours as I only take a small, but reasonable, amount of money because, as we're being told, the math says I will lose it all. One half hour in, and down $3.75, I hit for a $1,000 royal. So, I stopped playing and drove home. My expectation? I expect I will enjoy the win and whether or not I ever take any of it back into a casino, it's my money. It's not garbage. It's my money.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Sorry but dufus is simply an accurate description. From the dictionary:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1. a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person
Anyone who claims they have a system that overcomes a mathematically proven fact is without a doubt a complete dufus. Either that or they are a con man. I can switch and start referring to this person as a con man if you'd like.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. Your expectation over time did not change because you decided to quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
BTW, congrats on the royal.
Congratulations on the royal, Vegas Vic. By leaving with the win you did nothing to alter the theoretical long term, but you certainly came home with the money!! And when you keep coming home with the money you can BEAT the theoretical long term.
Really, the only thing allowing anyone to beat the "theoretical long term" is the fact that we die.
Wrong redietz. You can beat the "theoretical" every day that you live.
You know, Alan, between the two of us we almost add up to clever. We need to publish a book of Buddhist gambling sayings which, of course, will be ours.
The only problem with your last claim is the use of the word "when". It is not true that a person will always win. They won't as any gambler with a working memory can tell you. That's why your fantasy world eventually falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gotta agree with arci on this one. The "when" was an obvious choice by Alan as an alternative to "if." Using "if" sucks all the optimism out of the sentence.