Printable View
I don't have a clue how to determine the EV or anything else, but there has to be a difference playing 1 deal on a million play game versus playing a million different hands on a single play game. Whether it's variance, EV, or anything else pure logic and common sense says there is a difference.
Are there any million-play games ?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Probably not. Substitute any number you like. The point is that my over-exaggeration clearly illustrates my belief that there is a difference between a single play game and a multi play game. How that difference effects anything I have no idea. I assume you would still make the bet Coach on a million play game. Clearly Mickey would not.
It would take much longer to play a million hands on a single play game than on a multi-play game...that's a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I'll make the bet on any machine where the million hands can be played in a reasonable amount of time.
20 hours of play is reasonable, 2000 hours is not.
Hmmmmm. $10,000 a hand on pennies? Sure-sign me up.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIt would take much longer to play a million hands on a single play game than on a multi-play game...that's a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I'll make the bet on any machine where the million hands can be played in a reasonable amount of time.
20 hours of play is reasonable, 2000 hours is not.
This is interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you offering to take this bet...any amount and any odds...no strings attached?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I wouldn't wager against Coach on this because 2% is not a big enough margin.
Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says. I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you offering to take this bet...any amount and any odds...no strings attached?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
1. It has to be worth my time.
2. No weasel clause. Nothing other than the actual game can be used (ie: no freeplay, comps, promos, etc.).
[QUOTE=RS__;50310]Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Are you offering to take this bet...any amount and any odds...no strings attached?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
What does that mean? The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game. Would it not be a bet on the actual results?? WTF???
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Are you offering to take this bet...any amount and any odds...no strings attached?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm with regnis, I don't know what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I can play any number of hands on a 98% game, and if I finish ahead, then I win the bet?
[/QUOTE]Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says. I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.
1. It has to be worth my time.
2. No weasel clause. Nothing other than the actual game can be used (ie: no freeplay, comps, promos, etc.).[/QUOTE]
It has to be worth your time. How much is your time actually worth? Shouldn’t you be somewhere raking in the AP dough? Is this offer considered AP’ing? Trying to pull a few bucks from a fellow forum member. You clowns will try anything to prove how smart you are.
You’re really embarrassing yourself. Take a fn walk you fool.
Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says. I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.
1. It has to be worth my time.
2. No weasel clause. Nothing other than the actual game can be used (ie: no freeplay, comps, promos, etc.).[/QUOTE]
It has to be worth your time. How much is your time actually worth? Shouldn’t you be somewhere raking in the AP dough? Is this offer considered AP’ing? Trying to pull a few bucks from a fellow forum member. You clowns will try anything to prove how smart you are.
You’re really embarrassing yourself. Take a fn walk you fool.[/QUOTE]
Belly has been itching to get a bet down for weeks. Now RS offers him one and you accuse him of being the offensive one? You stupid assclown.
Still waiting for someone to explain what the proposed bet is.
Let's start with:
1. number of hands, and whether it is single play or multi play or anything coach wants.
2. What is the EV on the game. Or can the game be varied.
3. Where.
4. What is the wager.
5. What denomination or denominations.
Much more but let's get this info agreed upon to start.
I estimate another 100 posts without an agreement.
I would consider the conditions below to be a good starting pointQuote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Re-read what I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyQuote:
Originally Posted by RS__I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I'm with regnis, I don't know what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I can play any number of hands on a 98% game, and if I finish ahead, then I win the bet?
Perhaps it'll also help if you re-read what Alan wrote about it. Then you'll understand my position.
Yes, it would be based on the theoretical return of the machine. That's the bet I'm offering, since that's the bet Alan thought Mickey was offering coach belly originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisQuote:
Originally Posted by RS__Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
What does that mean? The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game. Would it not be a bet on the actual results?? WTF???
In case you guys haven't figured it out yet -- I'm showing how silly of a stance Alan had that the bet was based on the return of the game, since that would be an automatic win for Mickey. Remember when Alan was saying it doesn't matter if coach played a single line game or a multi line game, because (to Alan) the bet "wasn't based on variance"?
The bet is all about Coach playing a 98% game and having a profit which APs would describe as impossible because 98% is a negative return.
Of course they insist that they will have a profit on a 102% return game.
Instead of variance this is a bet about video poker skill: can Coach turn a 98% game into a money maker?
No, it's about variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Belly has been itching to get a bet down for weeks. Now RS offers him one and you accuse him of being the offensive one? You stupid assclown.[/QUOTE]
Between you and RS, this thread is no different than watching a scene from the show dumb and dumber. The chances of this happening are worse than this scene : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdN...=RDgqdNe8u-Jsg Yep, I'm the assclown alright.
So... suppose it is all about variance? Do you guys want to have the bet/contest or not?
Variance can go either way, as we know. And according to Dancer, Wizard and Grochowski and everybody else, the EV does not change whether played on 1 hand or 100,000 hands which doesn't do much for this "variance" issue, does it?
Is the bet on or not because I want to be there to record it.
If the number of hands don't matter then lay me 2 to 1, not 100 to 1, that the next hand won't be a winner. If the next hand is a loser I'll pay you $100. If the next hand is a winner you pay me $200. I'll gamble with you on this game all day long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So whatever you were trying to show, Coach and I saw through it. I thought you were just being sneaky but you were attempting to show up Alan. So now, is there a proposed REAL bet out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Yes, it would be based on the theoretical return of the machine. That's the bet I'm offering, since that's the bet Alan thought Mickey was offering coach belly originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnisQuote:
Originally Posted by RS__
In case you guys haven't figured it out yet -- I'm showing how silly of a stance Alan had that the bet was based on the return of the game, since that would be an automatic win for Mickey. Remember when Alan was saying it doesn't matter if coach played a single line game or a multi line game, because (to Alan) the bet "wasn't based on variance"?
I still don't know what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Can you give a more straightforward explanation of the terms/rules of the bet that you are offering?
Coach--my interpretation is that he is saying he will bet you that the theoretical on a 98% game is 98%. In other words, he is not offering you a legitimate bet.
So as usual, no one is putting up. And I think Coach was in on a legitimate bet. Too bad.Coach tried.
Oh...then what was all this about?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
It seemed pretty straightforward at the time, didn't occur to me that we needed an interpreter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Like I said before, yes. The bet would be based on the theoretical return of the game, not the variance, like Alan says. I'll cut you a break, you don't even have to play 1 million hands. You can play any amount of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Are you offering to take this bet...any amount and any odds...no strings attached?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
1. It has to be worth my time.
2. No weasel clause. Nothing other than the actual game can be used (ie: no freeplay, comps, promos, etc.).
18 Pages and still counting of endless nonsense. I keep coming back just to make certain all my previous posts containing my own assumptions and opinions are holding up. This is even worse than the fake news media, which I also assume this same group of bullshitters can't get enough off either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk
There's not going to be a bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes (the original bet from Mickey) was all about variance. How else do you suppose someone would win on a 98% game without variance?
Pretty much, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
It would really destroy the APs if Coach had a bet and won the bet because he had a profit on a 98% game. If it happened the APs wouldn't know what to say or do.
Belly you`re a fucking moron, can`t you see that....you`re not betting anyone you friggin bullshitterQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI still don't know what this means.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Can you give a more straightforward explanation of the terms/rules of the bet that you are offering?
I'm scratching my head over this Biloxi character. Has he ever submitted any comment of substance or is it all more of his spam (because the rest of us have more class than he does)?
Don`t scratch, it`s bad for you and makes you appear to either have a disease or be a canine....instead you should wonder why as a man, you let Singer punk you out continuously and still follow him around with a short skirt and pom-pomsQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
They would say a very rare event happened, like seventeen yo's in a row. After all someone wins Powerball occasionally too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It was 18 and they said it never happened. And in their world of long term math they can't believe anyone winning on a 98% game. They'd say the world must be flat in that case.
I've heard it all.
Then I'll give them a rematch and win again.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugThey would say a very rare event happened, like seventeen yo's in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'll quit while ahead after the first million hands...one cent is my win goal...then start another session.
This all circles back to the OP, and my first reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
RS must have taken the under.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
He's mentally ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He hasn't changed since his meltdowns as LoneStarHorse, OneArmedBandit, HesNotMyPres, and all the other screen names he's used over the years.
This is his last refuge, he's run out of forums to post on too.
Sorry. Eighteen yo's in a row is many times more improbable than being ahead after one million hands on a 98% game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Don`t you have a forum to pay off that you just robbed of entry fees and disappeared?. Careful scumbag, or else I`ll post the link so everyone can see for themselves. You`re writing styles are eerily similar. *wink wink*Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyHe's mentally ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He hasn't changed since his meltdowns as LoneStarHorse, OneArmedBandit, HesNotMyPres, and all the other screen names he's used over the years.
This is his last refuge, he's run out of forums to post on too.
The odds of winning tomorrow's powerball are (is?) approx. 1 in 292 million (1 in 292,201,338 to be exact). The odds of the next sequence of rolls being 18 yo's in a row is 1 in 3.9346408e+22 (or 1 in ~39,346,408,000,000,000,000,000). Actually, it's less likely than that, since that doesn't include the 17/18 chance of not seeing a yo on the 19'th roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugThey would say a very rare event happened, like seventeen yo's in a row. After all someone wins Powerball occasionally too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You are 460,829 times more likely to win the powerball two times in a row than you are to see the 18 yo's in a row.
Next we're going to hear Alan flipped a fair coin and it landed on heads 100 times in a row.
Go ahead and post the link, let everyone see for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biloxi Bill
The problem is the odds are not zero which is why Alan can be... well... Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__The odds of winning tomorrow's powerball are (is?) approx. 1 in 292 million (1 in 292,201,338 to be exact). The odds of the next sequence of rolls being 18 yo's in a row is 1 in 3.9346408e+22 (or 1 in ~39,346,408,000,000,000,000,000). Actually, it's less likely than that, since that doesn't include the 17/18 chance of not seeing a yo on the 19'th roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugThey would say a very rare event happened, like seventeen yo's in a row. After all someone wins Powerball occasionally too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You are 460,829 times more likely to win the powerball two times in a row than you are to see the 18 yo's in a row.
Next we're going to hear Alan flipped a fair coin and it landed on heads 100 times in a row.
Well whataya know...the site is now closed down...it appears the owner hightailed it away with $800 of members contest money...isn`t that right Gar..oops I mean BellyQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyGo ahead and post the link, let everyone see for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biloxi Bill
I know it's impossible... except I was there and saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSorry. Eighteen yo's in a row is many times more improbable than being ahead after one million hands on a 98% game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You and the other math experts were not there.
So if Coach wins you guys won't know what to do. You'll go catatonic. LOL
I never said I didn't believe it. It is highly improbable though. I will take you at your word. My original point was that a person could be ahead after a million hands at a 98% game but it's highly unlikely. It would be totally about luck not skill at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI know it's impossible... except I was there and saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugSorry. Eighteen yo's in a row is many times more improbable than being ahead after one million hands on a 98% game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You and the other math experts were not there.
So if Coach wins you guys won't know what to do. You'll go catatonic. LOL
Please explain why it would be "totally about luck" after a million hands? My feeling is that each and every hand of video poker is a combination of luck and skill.
I'm in total agreement with Dancer and Shackleford on the EV of video poker games. The EV is the same whether you play 1 hand, a thousand hands or a million hands.
Variance is a measure of short term volatility and should be considered on all video poker plays. A friend of mine, Doug Reul, a former writer for Video Poker Times, is the one who came up with the formula for measuring short term variance. I don't remember the formula exactly but it has something to do with square roots, probability and payoffs of each paying hand, then added all up. It's based on 600 hands per hour. The number given for the variance is expressed for one coin. Five-coin 7/5 Bonus Poker has a variance of 20.8. That means you will be up or down an average of 104 coins on your next 600 games.
At five-coin $1 7/5 Bonus Poker (98% EV) with a constant bet of $5 through one million hands you would be making a $5,000,000 total wager and your expected loss is $100,000. This is long term play and variance is pretty much a non-factor. Someone on vpFREE ran 10,000 simulations of one million hands at 7/5 Bonus Poker. Not one simulation was at breakeven or ahead at one million games. So I know the odds are longer than 10,000. This is why I made the statement I would have no problem laying 100 to 1 that you wouldn't be at breakeven or ahead at one million hands.
But take the case of 10,000 hands at single line. Would I lay 100 to 1 in that situation. Hell no!!! Variance is a factor at 10,000 hands. You would only be making a $50,000 wager and the expected loss is just $1000. Positive variance has a chance here. I don't know the exact odds of being at breakeven or ahead in this situation but I estimate it to be less than 1 in 40. I want to know the exact answer so I've downloaded Microsoft Office which has Excel, that you have to have in or for Dunbar's Risk Analyzer for Video Poker to work. Hopefully I can find answers with this program. But first I have to go through the learning curve to use it.
Would I lay 100 to 1 on something that has less than a 1 in 40 chance of success. Get the hell out! No way in hell would I make such a bet.
Playing a five-coin penny denom 100 play is the equivalent of playing five-coin $1 single line. You are making the same betting increment, $5. The hands have the exact same EV's. On both games if you are dealt a high pair it has an EV of 1.53 units, 7.65 coins, $7.65. But if you play 10,000 hands on hundred play and call it one million hands you are wrong. You are not making the same total wager as on the single line, not even close. You would be making only a $50,000 wager, not 5 million. And the expected loss is just $1000. Like I said, positive variance has a chance here, not a very good one, but still has a chance.
If you want to play a penny hundred play on the bet, fine. But you will have to make a $5 bet on each deal, and make the same total wager as you would on a five-coin single game. And that means you will have to hit the deal button one million times.
10,000 100-play hands @ 1.25 per hand (quarters) is a 1,250,000 total wager,Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
which is the same total wager as one million hands @ $1.25 per hand.
But the bet was for total hands played, not total amount wagered.
I would change denomination whenever necessary, and finish ahead after one million hands.
I've read that works 80% percent of the time.
Any doubters can step up to the plate.
Coach--everyone says you can't win yet nobody will take you on. Why do you suppose??
Changing denoms won't make any difference. It's the number of hands that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly10,000 100-play hands @ 1.25 per hand (quarters) is a 1,250,000 total wager,Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
which is the same total wager as one million hands @ $1.25 per hand.
But the bet was for total hands played, not total amount wagered.
I would change denomination whenever necessary, and finish ahead after one million hands.
I've read that works 80% percent of the time.
Any doubters can step up to the plate.
It takes a good size bankroll to play a million hands. Does coach have the bread? That would be my first question. How about an even money bet at 10.000 hands single or hundred play?
Because assuming perfect play at a 98% game for a million hands you would have to hit twenty five extra royals to break even. That's after hitting over twenty to begin with for a total of almost fifty royals all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Are you offering to take the bet yourself, or brokering it for somebody else?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
They scurry back into their hole after seeing their own shadow, the thought of facing an unfamiliar person must be terrifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
That post was mainly directed towards Micky but would you take the bet? (From Micky)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you offering to take the bet yourself, or brokering it for somebody else?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I would consider taking the bet from anyone, but it all depends on the terms and conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugThat post was mainly directed towards Micky but would you take the bet? (From Micky)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you offering to take the bet yourself, or brokering it for somebody else?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
For instance, I would not accept the bet with the condition that the hands must be played in Montana.
On the other hand, I'm willing to play it out in AC anytime before Labor Day.
Why perfect play? What if he uses "special plays"?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugBecause assuming perfect play at a 98% game for a million hands you would have to hit twenty five extra royals to break even. That's after hitting over twenty to begin with for a total of almost fifty royals all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
O.K. less than perfect play. Makes no difference, you need to get real lucky either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhy perfect play? What if he uses "special plays"?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaugBecause assuming perfect play at a 98% game for a million hands you would have to hit twenty five extra royals to break even. That's after hitting over twenty to begin with for a total of almost fifty royals all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Hundred play quarters is the equivalent of a $25 denom single line game, $125 per deal. The total wager of one million hands on either single play or hundred play would be $125,000,000. The expected loss would be $2,500,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly10,000 100-play hands @ 1.25 per hand (quarters) is a 1,250,000 total wager,which is the same total wager as one million hands @ $1.25 per hand. But the bet was for total hands played, not total amount wagered. I would change denomination whenever necessary, and finish ahead after one million hands. I've read that works 80% percent of the time. Any doubters can step up to the plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
YOU WILL HIT THE DEAL BUTTON ONE MILLION TIMES WHETHER ITS A SINGLE PLAY OR HUNDRED PLAY. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HIT THE DEAL BUTTON JUST 10,000 TIMES ON A HUNDRED PLAY AND CALL IT ONE MILLION HANDS, BECAUSE IT IS NOT. IT IS 10,000 HANDS WITH 100 DRAWS TO EACH HAND, NOT ONE MILLION HANDS.
You were all raring to go on one million hands, jamming me up for a bet on it, until Singer put the bug in your ear about hundred plays. Then all of a sudden single line became to impractical to you.
AND YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO MANIPULATE BET SIZE OR DENOMINATION. WHATEVER YOUR FIRST BET IS WILL BE THE BET SIZE UNTIL YOU COMPLETE ONE MILLION HANDS.
I was not the one jamming you up for a bet. You've been jamming me up for a bet but you want to change it to something that was not said in my original statement. So if you want to waste my time with this nonsense then I will waste your time. The one million hand challenge was good enough for you before Singer mentioned hundred plays.
YOU DON'T GET TO CHANGE A DAMN THING, porkbelly.
Yes it is, that's why the machine has a "Select Hands" function where you select the number of hands that you want to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I understand that Singer is in your head, but he had nothing to do with this. I came up with the 100-play idea myself...it's all in the archives.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The original challenge was to be ahead after one million hands. This denomination rules was an add-on well after I said I would need to play a 100-hand machine in order to complete a million hands in a reasonable amount of time, and only after Singer suggested I use his betting strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And if changing denominations doesn't work anyway, then why are you sweating it?
When you hit the deal button that is one hand. When you hit it again that it two hands. The number of draws you take on the hand has no bearing on the number of hands you played. It will take you much longer to complete one million hands on a hundred play than a single line game.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Yes it is, that's why the machine has a "Select Hands" function where you select the number of hands that you want to play.
I understand that Singer is in your head, but he had nothing to do with this. I came up with the 100-play idea myself...it's all in the archives.
The original challenge was to be ahead after one million hands. This denomination rules was an add-on well after I said I would need to play a 100-hand machine in order to complete a million hands in a reasonable amount of time, and only after Singer suggested I use his betting strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And if changing denominations doesn't work anyway, then why are you sweating it?
Singer is in your mouth.
Singer told you about the hundred plays. It's in the archives.
The bet will be constant. Whatever your first bet is will be the bet size for the one million hands. There will be no increasing or decreasing the bet. Repeat, no increasing or decreasing the bet. You must hit the deal button one million times. Hey, asshole, if you want to waste my time I will waste yours. You are going to have to sit down like an idiot and hit the deal button one million times.
True stuff right there :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhen you hit the deal button that is one hand. When you hit it again that it two hands. The number of draws you take on the hand has no bearing on the number of hands you played. It will take you much longer to complete one million hands on a hundred play than a single line game.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Yes it is, that's why the machine has a "Select Hands" function where you select the number of hands that you want to play.
I understand that Singer is in your head, but he had nothing to do with this. I came up with the 100-play idea myself...it's all in the archives.
The original challenge was to be ahead after one million hands. This denomination rules was an add-on well after I said I would need to play a 100-hand machine in order to complete a million hands in a reasonable amount of time, and only after Singer suggested I use his betting strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And if changing denominations doesn't work anyway, then why are you sweating it?
Singer is in your mouth.
Singer told you about the hundred plays. It's in the archives.
The bet will be constant. Whatever your first bet is will be the bet size for the one million hands. There will be no increasing or decreasing the bet. Repeat, no increasing or decreasing the bet. You must hit the deal button one million times. Hey, asshole, if you want to waste my time I will waste yours. You are going to have to sit down like an idiot and hit the deal button one million times.
I'M HALFWAY THERE.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No that's not correct, not on a hundred play (or hundred hand) machine,Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
that's why it says "Select Hands", they are all hands, you select the number of hands to play.
Even on a 100-play machine , I'm a longshot to win...probably more than 100-1.
But I'm willing to take an even money bet just to prove that you're too chicken to show up.
But if it has to be 6 months in Montana, then yes please stop wasting your time, because you're not serious.
Let's be honest here. Mickey doesn't want to have a bet with Coach. That's the end of it.
All of these discussions about what constitutes a hand or a bet, or EV vs Variance, mean nothing.
It's all spam.
There will be no bet.
On to other things.
Did I tell you I once saw a random shooter at Caesars roll 18 yos in a row, and not one of the three of us at the table even bet a single dollar on 11 the entire time?
You have kept saying the number of hands doesn't matter. I offered you a bet where you lay me 2 to 1, not 100 to 1, that the next hand won't be a winner. You have ignored the proposition. Let the record show that Alan Mendelson does not want the bet. There will be no bet. It is all spam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Belly is an idiot and so are you. Where in the hell do you guys get off thinking I'm the one who has to travel for a bet to go down? Get the fuck out. You two assholes are the ones pushing for a bet. You can come to me, not the other way around. If you want the goddam bet I'm right here. You two assholes get your asses up here if you want the bet. All you are doing is running your punk ass mouths. Let the record show that porkbelly and Mendelson are to chickenshit to come to Montana and throw down on a bet.
Let the record show that yellowbelly, the one who has been pushing for a bet, is to chickenshit to come to Montana for the bet. He's got an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo that's not correct, not on a hundred play (or hundred hand) machine,Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
that's why it says "Select Hands", they are all hands, you select the number of hands to play.
Even on a 100-play machine , I'm a longshot to win...probably more than 100-1.
But I'm willing to take an even money bet just to prove that you're too chicken to show up.
But if it has to be 6 months in Montana, then yes please stop wasting your time, because you're not serious.
Why don't you go to Vegas on his dime (as he offered) and show him a thing or two... like, he can't have a profit on a 98% game?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmLet the record show that yellowbelly, the one who has been pushing for a bet, is to chickenshit to come to Montana for the bet. He's got an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo that's not correct, not on a hundred play (or hundred hand) machine,Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
that's why it says "Select Hands", they are all hands, you select the number of hands to play.
Even on a 100-play machine , I'm a longshot to win...probably more than 100-1.
But I'm willing to take an even money bet just to prove that you're too chicken to show up.
But if it has to be 6 months in Montana, then yes please stop wasting your time, because you're not serious.
I don't give a rat's ass about the cost of a trip to Las Vegas. It's all the inconvenience. The only chance fatbelly has to win on a 98% game is short term luck. In the long run he has zero chance. Now, why don't you go to New Jersey on yellowbelly's dime and film him playing a hundred play. Dont give me any shit about it being inconvenient. You two idiots don't have any problem volunteering me to go to Nevada but neither of you two idiots will come to Montana. What's the matter? Don't like the inconvenience? Go fuck yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Las Vegas was built on losers like you and belly. I hope you like the carpet at Caesar's, Alan, because you paid for it.
deleted. duplicate post.
I'd be very happy to inconvenience myself. I'll put aside the work I do for my weekly TV show, and I'll put aside the work I do for my advertisers who have me do their commercials and Infomercials and I will gladly fly to AC on his dime. I'll bring along my girlfriend too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI don't give a rat's ass about the cost of a trip to Las Vegas. It's all the inconvenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Vegas is no inconvenience at all. My GF lives there. I go there once a week.
I'm surprised you would be inconvenienced Mickey? Is there something you do you're not telling us about?
My real name isn't Alan. It's Augustus. I paid for the whole tower.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
OK, so it's been 10 days since you received information from redietz. Let's here a verdict! Almost seems like both you and Singer, have gone radio silent rather than acknowledge redietz has proved his claim. Did I say "almost" ?? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Good catch coach on the phony, hypocritical so-called "AP" who migrated here from the libtard site full of freaks--WoV.
And kew, wake up. I'm simply demanding redietz supply some backup to all his talking smack--something you'd never be able to do yourself. So instead of posting thousand-word posts scrambling around trying unsuccessfully to convince normal people that you live in the past, try working on that chemical imbalance you have upstairs that you think empowers you within a world that just doesn't care.
Redietz, decided it was worth him to do so. I have no idea why? :confused: I suppose he just grew tired of all the bullshit. :rolleyes:
But there really is absolutely no benefit to him doing so. I would have advised him against it. AND, it won't even matter as any evidence he provides won't be "good enough".
I did NOT migrate here from WOV. I have not participated at WOV for a year and a half. But....you don't seem like the kind of 'person' to let the truth stand in the way of your alternative reality. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
That's not for you to say, you may not understand what he feels benefits him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Yes, I'm curious too about what Redietz sent Alan. Yo, Alan! What's up with that? And why isn't Rob curious about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOK, so it's been 10 days since you received information from redietz. Let's here a verdict! Almost seems like both you and Singer, have gone radio silent rather than acknowledge redietz has proved his claim. Did I say "almost" ?? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I still haven't been to the office to see the package.
Who told you you could take all that time off? Get back to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson