Printable View
I agree. I'm thinking he must be heavily involved with getting ready for the WSOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
It looks like Dan hasn't yet caught up with the fact that Rob is claiming to have worked the same glitch as Kane and Nestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'll say it since I don't care about abortion one way or the other, and those two weirdos Beto O'Dork & Pete Buttfuckajudge or whatever his fairy-ass name is, can't slither their way into this thread: a 28oz. Bud IS NOT conducive to finding the double up glitch in ANY situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Seemed like a good picture for the discussion.
I can see you’re still missing my point smurgerburger. In case you didn’t know this, we are a nation of laws! Pimps, crack dealers and sex traffickers are doing something against the law so they should be dealt with accordingly. Casinos are not against the law. If they were and casinos were operating, then our government should deal with them harshly.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Do you extend the same indulgence to pimps, crack dealers, sex traffickers, etc.? You don't fault them because they're doing what they're "intended" to do?
You blame governments for permitting casinos and degenerate gamblers for gambling at them, but you don't fault the entity that actually makes a profit from the activity?
For some reason you treat casinos as mechanical entities just automatically doing what they were "intended" to do, but you blame every other group that has any role in the gambling industry. It seems very strange to me.
If you have a problem with casinos, then you should work with our government to get them shut down. If casinos are doing something illegal (like strapping someone to a slot machine and making him/her pour his/her life savings into the slot machine) then you should report this to the authorities and get that casino shut down and the prepertators thrown in jail.
If the casinos are doing nothing against the law, then you should quite your constant complaining. It sounds like you are complaining about casinos doing what they are supposed to do. Their business model is to extract money from people through negative EV games. Everybody knows the House has the edge on all their games so no one is misled when they go into a casino.
It’s STRANGE you’re having such a hard time understanding this.
this myth needs to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21You’re missing my point smurgerburger. I have never conceded casinos use “dirty tricks”. Where did you get that? I said casinos do the same thing every other business does. They use marketing to try to sell more product to the customers. They use loyalty programs, and other marketing tools. All companies do this. I do not see this as “dirty tricks”. Apperantly you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I’ve said many times I try to keep casinos out of my local community. I fault our government for allowing casinos to operate. Governments, state and local, are why casinos exist. Governments know the weaker members of society (the one liberals label as “addicts”) will be negatively impacted when they let casinos in, but they still approve them. That should tell you something about our government, which is a reflection of us, since we’re a democracy.
I will not fault a casino for doing what it is intended to do, which many APs don’t understand. One more time for you since you appeared to miss it: A casino’s business model is to extract money from people by giving them entertainment through negative EV games. It’s that simple. Since casinos make a lot of money, people most enjoy this experience since they keep coming back.
For all intent and purposes the government itself created the weaker members of society "your words" that you talk about Bob. I will describe it as a lower class of people that became addicted by a complete dependancy on the governments welfare policies. All started by the democratic party under Lyndon Johnson's term a complete failure, just to win elections. Now it is a vicious cycle with the combination of lottery sales and gaming establishments recouping moneys that the government receives a big share and hands out to generation upon generation of welfare addicts. I blame the Democratic Party for all of this bullshit.
The Boz sumed up perfectly with the picture the slimy underhanded casino perspective in post #620. I had seen many of those type signs in Vegas in the mid eighties and nineties when I went often.
You and I are on the same page on this one Bosox. It’s the Democrats and liberals who have screwed up this country and developed a dependent underclass, which most the times keeps them elected. They want people to think government is the solution to all their problems, but government most the time is the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob21You’re missing my point smurgerburger. I have never conceded casinos use “dirty tricks”. Where did you get that? I said casinos do the same thing every other business does. They use marketing to try to sell more product to the customers. They use loyalty programs, and other marketing tools. All companies do this. I do not see this as “dirty tricks”. Apperantly you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I’ve said many times I try to keep casinos out of my local community. I fault our government for allowing casinos to operate. Governments, state and local, are why casinos exist. Governments know the weaker members of society (the one liberals label as “addicts”) will be negatively impacted when they let casinos in, but they still approve them. That should tell you something about our government, which is a reflection of us, since we’re a democracy.
I will not fault a casino for doing what it is intended to do, which many APs don’t understand. One more time for you since you appeared to miss it: A casino’s business model is to extract money from people by giving them entertainment through negative EV games. It’s that simple. Since casinos make a lot of money, people most enjoy this experience since they keep coming back.
For all intent and purposes the government itself created the weaker members of society "your words" that you talk about Bob. I will describe it as a lower class of people that became addicted by a complete dependancy on the governments welfare policies. All started by the democratic party under Lyndon Johnson's term a complete failure, just to win elections. Now it is a vicious cycle with the combination of lottery sales and gaming establishments recouping moneys that the government receives a big share and hands out to generation upon generation of welfare addicts. I blame the Democratic Party for all of this bullshit.
The Boz sumed up perfectly with the picture the slimy underhanded casino perspective in post #620. I had seen many of those type signs in Vegas in the mid eighties and nineties when I went often.
Look at the states that let casinos in first. It’s mostly the liberal states. The conservative states like Texas have tried to keep them out, but it’s only a matter of time before every state legalizes casinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI'll say it since I don't care about abortion one way or the other, and those two weirdos Beto O'Dork & Pete Buttfuckajudge or whatever his fairy-ass name is, can't slither their way into this thread: a 28oz. Bud IS NOT conducive to finding the double up glitch in ANY situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Seemed like a good picture for the discussion.
I was talking more about the 2nd line of the marquee Rob.
That said a 28oz Bud has a time and a place.
And Fuck (since you can say it here) Beto, Pete & Monet.
Just added Monet because for some reason he is pissed for me calling him out on his own statements that NO ONE should ever trust him.
Bob,
I believe your position was something like "It's ok for casinos to do what many would regard as bad because that's what they are intended to do".
I responded with the example of crack dealers etc. and you responded that they are bad because what they are doing is illegal.
So your new position is that anything is ok as long as it's legal.
I'm going to avoid any references to the Third Reich as just too obvious but since you have indicated that you are both a conservative and a Christian, do you find abortion clinics unobjectionable? They are doing what they are "intended to do" and they are legal.
Walmart exists to sell things (just as casinos exits to win money from gambling). I am sure you can find studies that will show people buy more when half drunk. Especially bigger ticket items like appliances and cars. Should Walmart and auto dealers start providing a few shots upon entering? And then where do you draw the line? Maybe the casino industry could start providing a couple lines of cocaine?
And here is a difference between the casino industry and the airline industry Bob21 (you made this comparison). Nobody becomes homeless from flying too much. Nobody can't pay the rent or buy groceries for their kids because they flew too much. And the reason this matter is because we pay for this. Taxpayers support these homeless that the casino industry creates. Taxpayers support the welfare families that the casino industry creates.
Wow- this subject is worn out! I would a done the same thing! Why? When this feature was available, I didn't know what it was-I hit the wrong button and LOST $800. When I realized I had hit yes, I tried to argue with management and wanted it cleared. Guess what their answer was.
Kj, you’re actually making my point for me. That’s why casinos should be illegal. Or should I say that’s why casinos have been illegal for most of our country’s history. It’s for the exact point you’re making. To protect the weak members of our society, who will be harmed by casinos. Liberals call weak members of our society “addicted”. Btw, saying someone is “addicted” absolves them from personal responsibility for their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Kj, if you believe strongly in what you wrote, then you should work on making casinos illegal. It makes no sense to blame an industry that was made legal by our government to do what they are intended to do. And what is that? To take money from people who enjoy playing negative EV games. Casinos are basically our government’s volunteer tax program.
Don’t blame casinos if you are upset with them. Blame our government for allowing them to exist. That’s been my point all along. I can tell most are still missing it. But nobody ever said APs are the sharpest tool in the tool shed. Lol.
Smurgerburger, yes I find abortion clinics objectionable. That’s why I’m working through our government to make abortion illegal so I can get them shut down. That’s why I voted for Trump. He is electing Supreme Court judges who will get Roe vs Wade over turned. Then maybe we can get abortion back to being illegal, and protect the weakest members of our society, the unborn. Btw, this is the main role of government. To protect the most vulnerable and weakest members of our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
As I’ve said before, we are a nation of laws. If you don’t like our laws, then you should work to get them changed. That’s what I’m doing.
If all you APs don’t like casinos because you believe they are taking advantage of the weak members of our society, then you should work to get them shut down. Sitting on forums complaining about casinos isn’t helping anybody. And taking money from a casino as an AP is also not helping the people you claim to care about. The ones that are “addicted” to gambling.
Btw, I can tell this abortion issue is a hot bottom issue with you since you bring it up all the time. I hope you are also working on getting abortion clinics shut down like I am.
I brought up abortion because I presumed you were pro-life and thought that that contradicted your earlier credo - "I will not fault a casino for doing what it is intended to do".
Well do you fault an abortion clinic or an abortion doctor for doing what he or it are intended to do?
Smurgerburger, you’re a sick sick man if you don’t see the difference between providing negative EV games to the public for the purpose of entertainment and taking the life of someone because they are inconvenient to someone else. Yes, abortion clinics have been legalized in our country since Row vs Wade, but that doesn’t make them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Are you saying that whatever our country (or any country) makes legal becomes okay and acceptable? Many countries have made things legal that are wrong and a person who has a conscience shouldn’t participate in, and, in fact, should work to make illegal.
I’m still struggling with understanding your argument. I’ve said all along if someone thinks casinos are immoral or doing something wrong, then they should work to get them shut down. I don’t. Apparently you do, since you keep equating abortion (the killing of an unborn life) to casinos (legalized gambling). Since you feel so strongly that legalized gambling is wrong, are you working to get casinos shut down?
Btw, there are many examples of gambling in the Bible. There is no commandment in the Old or New Testament against gambling. There are commendments against taking someone’s life. While you apparently don’t see the difference between abortion and casinos, God does. Or should I say the Bible does. I really feel sorry for you. You seem to have some really messed up beliefs. It sounds like you lost your moral compass. Are you a liberal by any chance?
The disciples chose Matthias by casting lots. The soldiers cast lots for Jesus' garments. Clearly two examples showing the difference of good and bad. Paul wrote that whatever a man senses is wrong-or hurts the brethren-to him it is wrong. Every man has to answer for himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Smurgerburger, you’re a sick sick man if you don’t see the difference between providing negative EV games to the public for the purpose of entertainment and taking the life of someone because they are inconvenient to someone else. Yes, abortion clinics have been legalized in our country since Row vs Wade, but that doesn’t make them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Are you saying that whatever our country (or any country) makes legal becomes okay and acceptable? Many countries have made things legal that are wrong and a person who has a conscience shouldn’t participate in, and, in fact, should work to make illegal.
I’m still struggling with understanding your argument. I’ve said all along if someone thinks casinos are immoral or doing something wrong, then they should work to get them shut down. I don’t. Apparently you do, since you keep equating abortion (the killing of an unborn life) to casinos (legalized gambling). Since you feel so strongly that legalized gambling is wrong, are you working to get casinos shut down?
Btw, there are many examples of gambling in the Bible. There is no commandment in the Old or New Testament against gambling. There are commendments against taking someone’s life. While you apparently don’t see the difference between abortion and casinos, God does. Or should I say the Bible does. I really feel sorry for you. You seem to have some really messed up beliefs. It sounds like you lost your moral compass. Are you a liberal by any chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
No Bob I believe you were saying that, remember?
"Casinos are free from blame because they are doing what they are intended to do",
then
"casinos are free from blame because they are doing what it is legal to do"
to now...
"casinos are free from blame according to my 'moral compass'"
We could have saved ourselves some time if you had just started here.
I can tell you are a little dense smurgerburger. You’re twisting things trying to relate abortion to casino. I think abortion is wrong and casinos are not. Why is that so hard for you to understand. When our country legalized abortion, I think that is wrong. When our county legalized casinos, I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s not something that is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
No Bob I believe you were saying that, remember?
"Casinos are free from blame because they are doing what they are intended to do",
then
"casinos are free from blame because they are doing what it is legal to do"
to now...
"casinos are free from blame according to my 'moral compass'"
We could have saved ourselves some time if you had just started here.
If you or any other AP has a problem with casinos, you should blame our government. Again, casinos are doing what they are supposed to do, extracting money from people by playing negative EV games. Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?
Abortion clinics are also doing what our country has made legal, but I don’t believe it’s right. I get some do. It’s usually the liberal crowd. I know Democrats love abortions, and want to make it as easy as possible to get an abortion. Btw, many doctors will not perform an abortion. In fact, most hospitals won’t perform abortions. That’s why there are abortion clinics.
I can tell you aren’t going to get the distinction I’m making. Since your logic is faulty, I’m convinced you’re a left wing liberal.
Ok Bob.
I took boob21 off of ignore for a couple days. Then put him right back on. He’s a blooming idiot.
Bob21 wrote:
I can tell you are a little dense smurgerburger.
I can tell you aren’t going to get the distinction I’m making. Since your logic is faulty, I’m convinced you’re a left wing liberal.
smurgerburger, is anything but dense if anything he has figured out just how you hedge everything you say to have a slightly different meaning. Either way he has debated you with courtesy and respect please reciprocate.
Thanks Mickey. It’s good to know when I’m on and off your ignore list. Thanks for the update. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
That’s your opinion Bosox. I disagree. It’s hard for me to see how anyone would try to make a connection between casinos and abortions. When people make such stupid arguments, it’s hard to know how to debate with themQuote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
And by the way Bosox, it looks like you have expanded your role on these forums. Not only are you the forum detective, but you’re also the forum courtesy police. Lol. That’s a lot to take on.
One thing about boob21. He thinks liberals are the anti-gamblers in this country. What an idiot. Religious conservatives have always been the anti-gambling faction in this country and always will be.
Here’s what you’re missing Mickey. A good conservative does not blame casinos. They blame the government for allowing casinos to come into their community. They work to get casinos shut down or made illegal, just like they do with abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Liberals, on the other hand, are usually the ones responsible for bringing casinos into their community. And then they, like the hypocrites they are, start attacking the casinos and blaming casinos for everything.
Whenever I see the first 2 letters BO for the poster on this site, I quickly move on. I know I am wasting my time reading the posts. Kind of ironic that the letters are Bo.
Whenever someone attacks the poster rather then their comments that usually indicates they are a liberal. So it definitely looks like MaxPen is a liberal, but what’s new?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
That’s why it’s always kind of fun debating with liberals. It usually just ends up in name calling because they have a difficult time making coherent arguments. The reality is most don’t have a good handle on what they even believe.
If conservatives work to get casinos shut down or made illegal, then Casinos must be liberal...because what conservative would work for a business they were actively trying to get shut down or made illegal? So it must follow that Advantage Players, The Casinos, and Ron Singer are all Liberals? I had no idea.
Real conservatives don't want government to be our nanny and tell us adults we can't gamble and casinos should be shut down or made illegal just because some fanatics think it's bad for some of us. That's how the Taliban operates.
Wrong? Quick lesson since I can tell you aren’t getting it. There are economic and social conservatives. In general, social conservatives believe there should be laws that help to stabilize/strengthen our country. This is why our tax structure favors families. The family unit strengthens our country. This is why a social conservative wants laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc. They basically want to make these things illegal. in general, these activities weaken a country and add no value. Contrary to what some thing, gambling is a zero sum game, and adds no value to society...other than entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Casinos are neither liberal or conservative. I can see most APs are still stuggling to understand the caisino’s business model. It’s to provide negative EV games to the public for entertainment. A person can be a conservative and still work in the casino industry. After all, they are legal and there is no commandment against it. However, I think it’d be hard to be a conservative and work as a prositute. But I’m sure someone will debate me on this.
I know some liberals try to make a comparison with religious conservatives and the Taliban. I don’t have time to go into it here, but suffice it to say that the liberals who try to make this point are uneducated and don’t know what they’re talking about. A polite word to describe these people is stupid.
As far as economic conservatives, they believe the money is better in the hands of the people making it. Liberals want it in the hands of the government so the government can distribute it as some leftwing liberal thinks is “fair”.
But...But...You just said Conservatives want to 'shut down Casinos and make them Illegal.' That's exactly what you said and that's the Liberal Nanny State you're supporting. What happened to personal responsibility and let the consumers decide...but you want to outlaw casinos now! i think you must be a closet Liberal. Wants the Government to control every aspect of our lives. Wants to outlaw casinos. Hog Wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Wrong? Quick lesson since I can tell you aren’t getting it. There are economic and social conservatives. In general, social conservatives believe there should be laws that help to stabilize/strengthen our country. This is why our tax structure favors families. The family unit strengthens our country. This is why a social conservative wants laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc. They basically want to make these things illegal. in general, these activities weaken a country and add no value. Contrary to what some thing, gambling is a zero sum game, and adds no value to society...other than entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Casinos are neither liberal or conservative. I can see most APs are still stuggling to understand the caisino’s business model. It’s to provide negative EV games to the public for entertainment. A person can be a conservative and still work in the casino industry. After all, they are legal and there is no commandment against it. However, I think it’d be hard to be a conservative and work as a prositute. But I’m sure someone will debate me on this.
I know some liberals try to make a comparison with religious conservatives and the Taliban. I don’t have time to go into it here, but suffice it to say that the liberals who try to make this point are uneducated and don’t know what they’re talking about. A polite word to describe these people is stupid.
As far as economic conservatives, they believe the money is better in the hands of the people making it. Liberals want it in the hands of the government so the government can distribute it as some leftwing liberal thinks is “fair”.
Yup, that's MaxPen alright. He sure loves liberalism, thinks it's great to pitch in for the common good, communal livin', and all that stuff. Not to mention he also wants taxes to go up even higher. He's also a vegan. You should see all the bumper stickers on the back of his Prius like "I'm with her!", "#MeToo", and "Down with the patriarchy!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Whenever someone attacks the poster rather then their comments that usually indicates they are a liberal. So it definitely looks like MaxPen is a liberal, but what’s new?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
That’s why it’s always kind of fun debating with liberals. It usually just ends up in name calling because they have a difficult time making coherent arguments. The reality is most don’t have a good handle on what they even believe.
Here's a picture of him at the LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP rally:
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1481709087358.png
I figured I’d get a response like this. I can see you’re going to have a hard time understanding this. Please reread my previous post. A conservative does believe is having laws that strengthen our country. Just like liberals, there are conservatives that take it too far. I mean at one time we had laws against selling alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeBut...But...You just said Conservatives want to 'shut down Casinos and make them Illegal.' That's exactly what you said and that's the Liberal Nanny State you're supporting. What happened to personal responsibility and let the consumers decide...but you want to outlaw casinos now! i think you must be a closet Liberal. Wants the Government to control every aspect of our lives. Wants to outlaw casinos. Hog Wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Wrong? Quick lesson since I can tell you aren’t getting it. There are economic and social conservatives. In general, social conservatives believe there should be laws that help to stabilize/strengthen our country. This is why our tax structure favors families. The family unit strengthens our country. This is why a social conservative wants laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc. They basically want to make these things illegal. in general, these activities weaken a country and add no value. Contrary to what some thing, gambling is a zero sum game, and adds no value to society...other than entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Casinos are neither liberal or conservative. I can see most APs are still stuggling to understand the caisino’s business model. It’s to provide negative EV games to the public for entertainment. A person can be a conservative and still work in the casino industry. After all, they are legal and there is no commandment against it. However, I think it’d be hard to be a conservative and work as a prositute. But I’m sure someone will debate me on this.
I know some liberals try to make a comparison with religious conservatives and the Taliban. I don’t have time to go into it here, but suffice it to say that the liberals who try to make this point are uneducated and don’t know what they’re talking about. A polite word to describe these people is stupid.
As far as economic conservatives, they believe the money is better in the hands of the people making it. Liberals want it in the hands of the government so the government can distribute it as some leftwing liberal thinks is “fair”.
Conservatives are obviously against legalizing casinos because of all the bad side effects that come to a community when casinos come in. I’ve said many times when casinos come up on the ballet in my community, I vote no. So far we’ve been able to keep casinos out of my community. With this said, I still like to go to casinos and be an AP. Call it inconsistent if you like, but I don’t want them in my town.
Texas is a conservative state and it still doesn’t have casinos. There are several states that have been able to keep casinos out of their states.
The reason people always use the phase “liberal nanny state” is because liberals like to pass laws that impact every aspect of your life. For example, a liberal state will pass laws on how big a fast food place can make their drinks. Wouldn’t you think government would have something better to do then regulate the size of a soft drink a fast food joint can serve? Not if you live in a liberal state. I could go on and on with all the stupid laws liberals pass to try and regulate every aspect of your life, and how businesses operates. Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t care how big a soft drink cup is. They let the fast food joint decide.
Liberals love to approve something and then blame it for the known side effects that come along with it. Casinos are a great example. Everybody knows the side effects (increased bankruptcies, crime, divorce, etc) that comes along with casinos, but liberals still want them in their communities. Why? Because of the revenue they being in.
I guess you could say conservatives are constitent in their thinking and worry about the big things that strengthen our country. Liberals are very inconsistent and worry abou things that don’t matter, like how large a soft drink cup should be.
There, now you understand the difference. The reason most APs are liberal is because they want casinos to be legal (obviously this is how they make money) but then they get on forums and continuously complain about all the evils of casinos. This is classic liberalism.
Btw, as a side note. I wonder if Mickey has me on or off his ignore list. He keeps changing it up. I’m sure Mickey will give me an update soon. Stay tuned. Lol
Using your logic, you must be against Liquor Stores and Bars and Cigarette companies too because they have the same effect as casinos...they ruin lives. Frankly i know very few real conservatives that think like you. I certainly don't. Let the consumer decide not the government...because it just leads banning all kinds of things....like sodas and fast food. It's a slippery slope when you try to impose your morals on me. You start by banning casinos and where does it end? It's hypocrisy. Whether you recognize it or not. Maybe one day you'll come around to accepting freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21I figured I’d get a response like this. I can see you’re going to have a hard time understanding this. Please reread my previous post. A conservative does believe is having laws that strengthen our country. Just like liberals, there are conservatives that take it too far. I mean at one time we had laws against selling alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeBut...But...You just said Conservatives want to 'shut down Casinos and make them Illegal.' That's exactly what you said and that's the Liberal Nanny State you're supporting. What happened to personal responsibility and let the consumers decide...but you want to outlaw casinos now! i think you must be a closet Liberal. Wants the Government to control every aspect of our lives. Wants to outlaw casinos. Hog Wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Conservatives are obviously against legalizing casinos because of all the bad side effects that come to a community when casinos come in. I’ve said many times when casinos come up on the ballet in my community, I vote no. So far we’ve been able to keep casinos out of my community. With this said, I still like to go to casinos and be an AP. Call it inconsistent if you like, but I don’t want them in my town.
Texas is a conservative state and it still doesn’t have casinos. There are several states that have been able to keep casinos out of their states.
The reason people always use the phase “liberal nanny state” is because liberals like to pass laws that impact every aspect of your life. For example, a liberal state will pass laws on how big a fast food place can make their drinks. Wouldn’t you think government would have something better to do then regulate the size of a soft drink a fast food joint can serve? Not if you live in a liberal state. I could go on and on with all the stupid laws liberals pass to try and regulate every aspect of your life, and how businesses operates. Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t care how big a soft drink cup is. They let the fast food joint decide.
Liberals love to approve something and then blame it for the known side effects that come along with it. Casinos are a great example. Everybody knows the side effects (increased bankruptcies, crime, divorce, etc) that comes along with casinos, but liberals still want them in their communities. Why? Because of the revenue they being in.
I guess you could say conservatives are constitent in their thinking and worry about the big things that strengthen our country. Liberals are very inconsistent and worry abou things that don’t matter, like how large a soft drink cup should be.
There, now you understand the difference. The reason most APs are liberal is because they want casinos to be legal (obviously this is how they make money) but then they get on forums and continuously complain about all the evils of casinos. This is classic liberalism.
Btw, as a side note. I wonder if Mickey has me on or off his ignore list. He keeps changing it up. I’m sure Mickey will give me an update soon. Stay tuned. Lol
And as for Texas....There are Indian casinos all over Texas. And the Texas State Government not only sanctions gambling, they participate in it via their monopoly over the State Lottery. They're just not into giving their consumers the choice of a free market. I imagine you want to ban Indian Casinos and the State Lottery too. I say let the consumer decide. That Ain't liberal.
Anyway...think what you want. I really hate it when some people try to make everything political. I'll be signing out now. Good Luck to All.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeUsing your logic, you must be against Liquor Stores and Bars and Cigarette companies to because they have the same effect as casinos...they ruin lives. Frankly i know very few real conservatives that think like you. I certainly don't. Let the consumer decide not the government...because it just leads banning all kinds of things....like sodas and fast food. It's a slippery slope when you try to impose your morals on me. You start by banning casinos and where does it end? It's hypocrisy. Whether you recognize it or not. Maybe one day you'll come around to accepting freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21I figured I’d get a response like this. I can see you’re going to have a hard time understanding this. Please reread my previous post. A conservative does believe is having laws that strengthen our country. Just like liberals, there are conservatives that take it too far. I mean at one time we had laws against selling alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Conservatives are obviously against legalizing casinos because of all the bad side effects that come to a community when casinos come in. I’ve said many times when casinos come up on the ballet in my community, I vote no. So far we’ve been able to keep casinos out of my community. With this said, I still like to go to casinos and be an AP. Call it inconsistent if you like, but I don’t want them in my town.
Texas is a conservative state and it still doesn’t have casinos. There are several states that have been able to keep casinos out of their states.
The reason people always use the phase “liberal nanny state” is because liberals like to pass laws that impact every aspect of your life. For example, a liberal state will pass laws on how big a fast food place can make their drinks. Wouldn’t you think government would have something better to do then regulate the size of a soft drink a fast food joint can serve? Not if you live in a liberal state. I could go on and on with all the stupid laws liberals pass to try and regulate every aspect of your life, and how businesses operates. Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t care how big a soft drink cup is. They let the fast food joint decide.
Liberals love to approve something and then blame it for the known side effects that come along with it. Casinos are a great example. Everybody knows the side effects (increased bankruptcies, crime, divorce, etc) that comes along with casinos, but liberals still want them in their communities. Why? Because of the revenue they being in.
I guess you could say conservatives are constitent in their thinking and worry about the big things that strengthen our country. Liberals are very inconsistent and worry abou things that don’t matter, like how large a soft drink cup should be.
There, now you understand the difference. The reason most APs are liberal is because they want casinos to be legal (obviously this is how they make money) but then they get on forums and continuously complain about all the evils of casinos. This is classic liberalism.
Btw, as a side note. I wonder if Mickey has me on or off his ignore list. He keeps changing it up. I’m sure Mickey will give me an update soon. Stay tuned. Lol
And as for Texas....There are Indian casinos all over Texas. And the Texas State Government not only sanctions gambling, they participate in it via their monopoly over the State Lottery. They're just not into giving their consumers the choice of a free market. I imagine you want to ban Indian Casinos and the State Lottery too. I say let the consumer decide. That Ain't liberal.
If you are so for freedom could you tell all your liberal friends to quite passing laws on the size of my soft drink cup and other stupid stuff like that. There is a reason people say we’re moving to a “liberal nanny state”. It’s because of all the liberals passing laws to try and regulate our lives. They also like to be the ones who decide what people make and how much businesses should pay people. They do not believe in the freedom of two individuals agreeing on something.
As far as Texas having casinos, you’re right they do. When I lived there, they didn’t. I hadn’t checked recently, but it had always been my understanding that casinos still weren’t legal in Texas.
Here’s a question for you. If liberals like casinos so much, why do they constantly complain about casinos and always send me articles showing me all the evils of casino? Even Mickey has sent me an article showing me the evils of casinos. I’m just trying to understand their logic. They like casinos in their communities but then constantly complain about them, blaming them for all the problems in their communities. Hope you can shed some light on this.
And one more question while I’m at it. Since you believe everybody should have the right to make their own decision, do you believe crack, cocaine and LSD should be made legal? Where do you draw the line? Most people like you who make statements like you do (like don’t impose your morals on me) haven’t really thought things through very well. Hope this helps you be a little deeper thinking.
And for the record I am NOT blaming casinos. I just reread your post. I’m defending casinos. I’ve said many times casinos are doing what they are suppose to do. That’s why I’m so confused why so many people, including APs, and are constantly criticizing them. You are the hypocrite.
Anyway...think what you want. I really hate it when some people try to make everything political. Arguing about it never really accomplishes much of anything. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. I'll be signing out now....Really. Good Luck to All.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeUsing your logic, you must be against Liquor Stores and Bars and Cigarette companies to because they have the same effect as casinos...they ruin lives. Frankly i know very few real conservatives that think like you. I certainly don't. Let the consumer decide not the government...because it just leads banning all kinds of things....like sodas and fast food. It's a slippery slope when you try to impose your morals on me. You start by banning casinos and where does it end? It's hypocrisy. Whether you recognize it or not. Maybe one day you'll come around to accepting freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
And as for Texas....There are Indian casinos all over Texas. And the Texas State Government not only sanctions gambling, they participate in it via their monopoly over the State Lottery. They're just not into giving their consumers the choice of a free market. I imagine you want to ban Indian Casinos and the State Lottery too. I say let the consumer decide. That Ain't liberal.
If you are so for freedom could you tell all your liberal friends to quite passing laws on the size of my soft drink cup and other stupid stuff like that. There is a reason people say we’re moving to a “liberal nanny state”. It’s because of all the liberals passing laws to try and regulate our lives. They also like to be the ones who decide what people make and how much businesses should pay people. They do not believe in the freedom of two individuals agreeing on something.
As far as Texas having casinos, you’re right they do. When I lived there, they didn’t. I hadn’t checked recently, but it had always been my understanding that casinos still weren’t legal in Texas.
Here’s a question for you. If liberals like casinos so much, why do they constantly complain about casinos and always send me articles showing me all the evils of casino? Even Mickey has sent me an article showing me the evils of casinos. I’m just trying to understand their logic. They like casinos in their communities but then constantly complain about them, blaming them for all the problems in their communities. Hope you can shed some light on this.
unowme---AKA Nobody's Sock Puppet.
I traded in the Prius for a pickem up truck when I went off my TDS meds. It's ok though, I since got back on the meds and went with a Tesla for zero emissions. #MORETAXES #SAVEtheWHALESQuote:
Originally Posted by RS__Yup, that's MaxPen alright. He sure loves liberalism, thinks it's great to pitch in for the common good, communal livin', and all that stuff. Not to mention he also wants taxes to go up even higher. He's also a vegan. You should see all the bumper stickers on the back of his Prius like "I'm with her!", "#MeToo", and "Down with the patriarchy!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Whenever someone attacks the poster rather then their comments that usually indicates they are a liberal. So it definitely looks like MaxPen is a liberal, but what’s new?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
That’s why it’s always kind of fun debating with liberals. It usually just ends up in name calling because they have a difficult time making coherent arguments. The reality is most don’t have a good handle on what they even believe.
Here's a picture of him at the LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP rally:
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1481709087358.png
Point taken. But like it or not, casinos are political. They are not like other business. If someone wants to open a pizza shop or movie theater, it is not on the ballot. Casinos are. Every election casinos come up on our ballot and I vote no. I’m sure some vote yes. Since casinos still aren’t in my town, there most be more no votes. For Indian casinos to be legalized in Arizona, they had to be approved by the public through a vote. The public voted yes, because they wanted them and because of the revenue they bring in.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeAnyway...think what you want. I really hate it when some people try to make everything political. Arguing about it never really accomplishes much of anything. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. I'll be signing out now....Really. Good Luck to All.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
If you are so for freedom could you tell all your liberal friends to quite passing laws on the size of my soft drink cup and other stupid stuff like that. There is a reason people say we’re moving to a “liberal nanny state”. It’s because of all the liberals passing laws to try and regulate our lives. They also like to be the ones who decide what people make and how much businesses should pay people. They do not believe in the freedom of two individuals agreeing on something.
As far as Texas having casinos, you’re right they do. When I lived there, they didn’t. I hadn’t checked recently, but it had always been my understanding that casinos still weren’t legal in Texas.
Here’s a question for you. If liberals like casinos so much, why do they constantly complain about casinos and always send me articles showing me all the evils of casino? Even Mickey has sent me an article showing me the evils of casinos. I’m just trying to understand their logic. They like casinos in their communities but then constantly complain about them, blaming them for all the problems in their communities. Hope you can shed some light on this.
unowme---AKA Nobody's Sock Puppet.
You will not see me criticize casinos. I am their biggest defender on these forums. It’s never made any sense to me to criticize an industry for doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. I’ve always faulted the government (really us people) for all the things people criticize casinos for. If states and communities didn’t want bankruptcies to go up, then they shouldn’t have let casinos into their communities. It’s that simple.
Actually it's both. Nanny-state liberals and religious conservatives have common ground here, for different reasons. The nanny-staters are interested in protecting the stupid from themselves, why the religion-types are interested in opposing "moral degeneracy".Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Then there's the ones who want to ban gambling except for the lottery just so they can have a monopoly over it (while offering what amounts to a keno game with like a 50% house edge), who you also find in both parties.
You have Texas confused with Oklahoma.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
It's how Winstar got so big. Because it's the closest place for a large amount of Texans to gamble.
Pepe, for the most part I agree with you, but I think most don’t understand the religious conservatives motivations. It is NOT to impose their values or morals on other people...it is to strength our country. Regardless of what liberals want to believe, the data supports the family unit (meaning a man and women.. not Bob and Harry) are the best way to raise kids. And a kid raised in a better environment has a better chance of being a contributing member of society, which strengthens our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeActually it's both. Nanny-state liberals and religious conservatives have common ground here, for different reasons. The nanny-staters are interested in protecting the stupid from themselves, why the religion-types are interested in opposing "moral degeneracy".Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Then there's the ones who want to ban gambling except for the lottery just so they can have a monopoly over it (while offering what amounts to a keno game with like a 50% house edge), who you also find in both parties.
For the most part, conservatives believe in laws that discourage deviant and non-productive behavior, which weakens our country. While liberals like laws that support deviant behavior and encourages people to be non-productive, which is why liberals like welfare. It also keeps them elected by having a captive voting community.
The other difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives don’t care how big the cup is for your soft drink. But for liberals this is a really big deal. They think it should only be so big. This is the kind of think liberals spend a lot or time thinking about, and passing laws to control.
The funny thing is, given your logic, they should. Because fat people being fat also weakens our country. Therefore, following the same logic of discouraging deviant and non productive behavior, things like soft drinks, which provide no value to society other than tasting good, provide no nutritional value, should also be banned. The only people who should be supportive of soft drink freedom are libertarians, who don't believe in society, only individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Since this thread has devolved into a wildly different discussion....did anybody see where Nevada's Dem. Governor refused to sign some libtard bill that would force their 6 Electoral votes to not count towards who Nevada voters voted for?
In essence, it would have made those Electoral votes be aligned with how California's ragtag collection of illegals, foreigners, minorities, transgender freaks, faggots, weirdos, and collection of EXTREMELY CONFUSED PEOPLE voted.
God Bless America. We do something right every now and then.
I don't understand the labeling of people that goes on at this site. Especially when you don't know a person or all, or most of their views. Someone like BBB at Wov and a few others there it is fair to do, because they share their views so often and always come down as a bleeding liberal. But most people, like myself, you are taking a very narrow opinion about a specific topic and throwing a label on someone. It is a form of demonizing people that don't agree with you. Bob21 seems to be a master.
The comparison numerous people make concerning the casino industry and other businesses is just bogus. Casinos destroy lives. Many lives. There is no comparison to supermarkets, airlines, movie theaters or anything else. Those of us that spend a lot of time in casinos are FAR to aware of this. And sure people can argue personal responsibility. But that doesn't work. The grandmother that loses her social security check, or the Father that loses his paycheck and can't pay rent or buy food for his family aren't being held responsible. Granny isn't going to end up one of those cronic homeless living in a cardboard box. The guys family isn't going to end up on the street as some of those putrid smelling folks that you get a wiff of from 100 yards away. Both these cases are going to end up on government programs, programs that you and I pay for. So don't give me personal responsibility. I end up paying for them and being responsible. And I don't like it! Not when it is the casino industry and it's predatory behavior not really associated with it's business model that are responsible for this crap. They get off scott free.
I mean if the casino industries business model is about gambling, then they don't need to cash checks. They are not a bank. Make their money from people gambling.
Now since someone said that most AP's are liberals, I will weigh in on that. I don't agree. For one I think very few people are strictly liberal or strictly conservative. I think most have views in the middle and sometimes come down one way or the other. But I would say it seems like there are fewer true conservatives in the AP ranks because of just what conservative means. Conservative means cautious or acting very safe. You take that to the extreme and truly conservative people probably don't have the stomach for any kind of risk (monetarily), even on a recreational basis. But certainly not making a living from. That is not the cautious or safe path. Getting a good job and a safe career is the safe path. APing for a living or really any kind of self employment is far away from the way they think.
I saw where the legislature passed that bill. I knew the governor hadn't committed to it. So not surprised. Quite a few states have passed this measure. I don't like it. While I do think the electorial college is outdated and needs to be revisited, this plan is an end run around it. Don't do that. address the problem and fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
And I am sure the "righties" on this site are big electoral college supporters because they have benefited twice in the last 5 elections, they will be ready to revisit it when it goes against them. Let's not talk about Trump because passions run too high being the current situation, but suppose Bush/Gore had played out just the opposite. Suppose Gore eeked out a tiny electoral victory while Bush received a million more votes. I wonder how the "righties" would respond to that. :rolleyes:
And really with the liberal states like California continuing to grow, that possibility isn't that far down the road. Might get to where if New York, California and a couple other states vote one way, the entire rest of the country could vote the other and it wouldn't be enough. You gonna be ok with that Rob?
And since Rob's great AP play thread has veered off to all these other topic like politics. I have a question about a political issue that is in the news a lot these days for my far right friends. Abortion. It happens to be a topic I just have no interest in one way or the other. But the right, desperately wants to overturn abortion and has for almost 50 years now. Now it is safe to say, the right doesn't like minorities right. I suppose someone will argue that point, but they aren't being honest. And Minorities are disproportionately democrats.
So who gets the most abortions? Blacks and Latinos. So you outlaw abortion and you are increasing the black and Latino populations that the far right doesn't like. I mean it is like you are creating extra democratic voters down the road. ;) Funny shit! AND blacks and Latinos are disproportionately poor, right? Am I going to get an argument on this? :confused: So doing away with abortion means creating more poor black and Latino folks, collecting government programs that I pay for, or at very least in that lower income bracket that pays no taxes but collects tax refunds. And THEN like I said 20 years down the road, extra voters voting against you.
LOL! ;) Who is thinking these decisions through.
>the right doesn't like minorities right
Depends what generation of "the right".
The boomers and gen X conservatives really did buy into the equalism idea that was drilled into their heads in schools, and are much more likely to lean toward the individualist/libertarian version of conservatism. These are the types who unironically believe the "Democrats are the real racists!" stuff.
The younger millennial and especially zoomer right wingers are the ones who lean on the "ethnostate" end of the spectrum.
Now yes, it doesn't make logical sense from that standpoint to oppose abortion, however many do, because of religion. They genuinely do believe that abortion is the taking of a human life just the same as putting a gun to a fully grown adult's head and pulling the trigger, and oppose it on moral grounds.
Kj, like most APs, you seem confused about casinos. You want them to be legal, but then you continue to blame them for everything under the sun. You blame them for people going bankrupt, for grandmother losing her social security check, for some idiot Philly Eagles owner having to sell his team, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you truly believe “Casinos destroy lives. Many lives.” then why do you think they should be legal? Isn’t that part of the role of government? To protect its citizens against things that “destroy lives”?
I’ve come to the conclusion the reason liberals don’t like religious conservatives is because religious conservative position is consistent and liberals have no idea what they believe. Look at Kj. He’s wants casinos to be legal, but at the same time says “Casinos destroy lives”. That’s a very inconsistent position.
By the way, casinos do NOT destroy lives. No one is forcing someone to gamble to the point of destroying their life. That person is doing it (destroying his life by gambling too much) by his own free will. Last I checked we live in a free country.
Kj, if you don’t like casinos cashing people’s checks then you need to work within our system to make this against the law. Personally, I think this is a great service the casinos provide. This way people don’t need to waste a trip to the bank.
Mickey is the one who I’m most confused by. He seems to want casinos to be legal but then he sends me an article (or stated more correctly attached an article to one of his posts intended for me) explaining all the downsides that occur when casinos come into a new community, like crime, divorce and bankruptcies increase, and I’m sure a lot of other bad things occur. So I’m thinking if Mickey believes all this why does he want casinos to be legal? Does he like lives destroyed? Anyway very confusing.
I hope I’m on Mickeys ignore list so he doesn’t read this. It’ll probably just get him more confused.
It may be a "crime" to get this thread back on track again, but those are the breaks. It's more of a close-out for me than anything else.
This past weekend I had my son and daughter along with their spouses here for a get-together at my request. While the kids swam and texted their friends, I broke the news to them all at the same time (including to my wife, who really didn't understand what I was telling her the first time around) about what I did with the vp machines for 5+ years.
Their reactions? None of them understood anything because none of them go to casinos other than the once-every-2-years to party thing. But the overwhelming response was "we figured you knew what you were doing because you always do" and when I told them about the two greedy stupid clowns who got caught and arrested/cleared from doing the same thing when my play ended, they said they knew from living with me that I would never do anything wrong anyway.
How does it get any better than that? Anyone who's involved with casinos would NEVER have any problem with anyone explaining how they exploited a play like this. Or at least there's no way that they should.
As mentioned, these machines are still out there. You just have to care enough to understand that. The two low limit ones I found at Indian casinos confirmed that to me. Common sense says there are others--possibly many others. I hope others find and exploit them as well. If I do find any in LV or even in Laughlin or Reno/Tahoe after I get back on two feet--and you can be sure I'll be looking since I've already had my sweet piece of the casino pie--and since I will no longer be traveling between Az. and Nv. weekly, I will inform axel about it/them so he can hammer them.
Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon. Can you believe our TV's have devolved into showing weirdos like these??
Rachel Maddow. I don't watch her(or anyone for that matter) but the few times I have I didn't like that dyke.
Do machines with the double up feature normally have signs advertising that?
Or do you just have to recognize that it's the right model to have the option and ask them to turn it on?
Normally they do not. I think you would have to play a hand and get a win in order to know. However, there's a good chance that all these years I haven't noticed there's actually a way to tell in the help screen or some other way. If I want to know, I usually just play the machine to find out. But that's a good question for someone not very familiar with VP. It made me wonder if I had been missing something. Because some older models of VP did advertise this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Best I remember, they do not. When I won the $800, I thought I hit the cash out button. When I looked down, there was "are you sure"? I thought it was cash out, but then came the choice and I was puzzled and asked a floor host and he told me I had to play it through. Bye bye $800!Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
The big thing to keep in mind (this is a reminder - Ron already mentioned this) when running this play is that the denominational spread is going to be tight. Maybe 5c and 10c have the same pay table and then 25c and 50c the same pay table different from the 5c and 10c, etc.. It is extremely unlikely you will find something like 5c to $1 with the same paytable nowadays. So, yeah, the machines that have the double up bug are all over the fucking place (with double up usually not enabled), but you have to have the same pay table. Pipe dream plays where you grind away until you get an AWAK (DDB or TDB) at the 5 cent level and then jump up to $25 are a thing of the past.
Edit: one way you can get really cute with this play (speculation) is to find multi-hand with double-up - I believe there is overlap between the two features on the target Game King models . . .
Getting double on a 4 of a kind and up, on something like bonus poker deluxe would be in the neighborhood of 120%. 130% if you included the full houses. Playing nickles switching to dimes you could make over $50 an hour. 10 x that amount playing .50 going to $1Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I think it's pretty common for the top two denominations to have the same paytables, or if not the top two then all the lower denominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
What I'm not so sure about is how many vulnerable machines are out there. I guess they were not able to do remote firmware updates, so they must have offered free chip upgrades and also sent the memo warning about the double up feature.
How many are left after that I don't know.
That's why there ARE vulnerable machines out there--IGT first warned it's worldwide customers, the memo told them that a fix was coming, then they sent out new chips to all. It was up to each and every casino to manually go around and change the upgraded chip in each and every affected machine....on the planet. Just knowing how people in business generally operate, there'd be zero chance of 100% compliance from the get-go. This is why Barona and Peppermill Corp. have policies of never enabling the DU option in any machines again. And it's for sure there are others.
Back then it wasn't just walk in, sit down, and destroy. You had to sit at a mid-2002 or later machine, but by 2005 these were plentiful because they were anti-glare/flat screen/tito, and everybody wanted them. The older coin-droppers/curved tube screens were updated but did not have the software bug. Today it's slightly more challenging since newer machines without the bug have come out after mid-2009, but by and large a majority of those 2002-2009 machines remain on casino floors. If you steer clear of machines that do everything but give you a back rub you have a better chance of coming across one.
I've not seen the DU option advertised and always played to a winning hand to see if it was turned on. Most aren't, but back then there was little problem getting it enabled. I've found it a bit more difficult these days, although you can find it already activated here and there.
That's another thing--4 and 5 denomination machines these days are usually gonna have different pay tables on the lower denoms vs. the higher one or two. But if you find one of these it all comes down to how creative you are with your movements, because to make money you'll have to make this play an awful lot at that one machine. I was always concerned some yahoo nobody might accidentally see me making some odd moves, but it was all just in my head. This is what led me to my one-and-done approach at only higher limits, but it was probably not necessary. If I had lived in Nv. I would have surely changed my strategy.
You can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I would be wary of putting the play down in an Indian Casino. They operate under a different set of laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Definitely. But mickey, you left something out:
AND as evidence that he purposefully misled hundreds if not thousands of Gaming Today readers, manipulated Alan Mendelson into publicizing the lies that were a cover story, and basically "trained" people to do what? Play the denomination-switching or the double down?
It's the equivalent of my discovering a sportsbook whose parlay payoffs were glitched, so I wrote articles explaining that people should play parlays, and posted thousands of times recommending parlays, but never mentioned the site with the glitch.
Rob has been called a fraud a thousand times about his video poker system. Is he? After years of arguing with Rob about it and reading what others argue about it I've just simply come to the conclusion that Rob believes in his system. Do I believe it? Well, no, not really. But I've never tried it either. One of the repeated allegations is Rob somehow made money off those he taught the system to. But it's been many years and no one has come forward saying he charged them or made them use his card or anything like that. As far as his books go, everyone from Dancer on down say there is no money in books.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Definitely. But mickey, you left something out:
AND as evidence that he purposefully misled hundreds if not thousands of Gaming Today readers, manipulated Alan Mendelson into publicizing the lies that were a cover story, and basically "trained" people to do what? Play the denomination-switching or the double down?
It's the equivalent of my discovering a sportsbook whose parlay payoffs were glitched, so I wrote articles explaining that people should play parlays, and posted thousands of times recommending parlays, but never mentioned the site with the glitch.
I think Rob believes in his system and thats why he has stuck to his guns all these years. Can I tell you that it works. Sure can't.
Yes exactly - no one and dones (probably);money getting fed into machines with credits already on the machine and hours of exposure. Probably better than hand pays. So it's definitely a money maker - but a little higher risk IMHO and more time-consuming depending on money goals but I would think a person would want to spend a while on the machine if they took the trouble to expose themselves in the first place. Multi-hand BPD would shorten the time between quads (when did quick quads come out ? - LOL) if it's true that there was overlap between double-up and multi-hand and I suspect there was.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I vividly remember that scene in the new black jack movie (Inside the Edge: A Professional Blackjack Adventure) where KC is told (at an Indian casino), "you should think very carefully about your next move because it's not going to be very good for you if you make the wrong decision" by an Indian Casino pit boss on hidden camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Yes, and because of that unknown is why I only worked it in one state and not at Indian casinos. Those two Indian casinos where I found the flaw 3-1/2 years ago in Az. in low limit machines---I didn't cash out either machine. Just got up and left, seed money and all. I did go back to check a high limit machine at one place but it didn't work, and my trying was a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The point I was trying to emphasize above but didn't clearly say was that it took about 3 dozen casino visits to confirm to myself that the "older" machines wouldn't cooperate. I had no idea like we do today that only a certain generation and above had this flaw built in. I spent lots of frustrating and disappointed time trying to figure out why some machines just wouldn't work.
Red, I appreciate what you're trying to claim, but the only part that's true is my misleading GT readers in HOW I was hitting those jackpots from 2004-on. From '01 to '03 I was 100% honest reporting. SPS worked just fine so I ran with that going forward. What should I have done--quit writing? It was not an easy decision, just as my choice to create diversions for my mind by becoming the most nasty, most insulting character on Internet gaming forums. It was a LOT to deal with, with no one to discuss it with.
I didn't meet Alan until right near the end of the play. He never had any idea about anything until I recently told him. But he misled no one, and all he's done is explain parts of my successful strategy.
If any of you believe Robs BS, you're stupid!!
Next he'll be telling is how he discovered hole carding and taught Grosjean everything he knows. Wise up!!!
And Alan believes he saw 18 y.o.'s in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Believing something doesn't make it so. Not when the math says otherwise.
And frankly his continuing to double down on this claim makes it harder to believe anything he says. THAT is what credibility is.
I never said believing in it makes it so. I said I think he believes in his system. You can argue it to death, like I did for 13 years, but you are never going to change his mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnd Alan believes he saw 18 y.o.'s in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Believing something doesn't make it so. Not when the math says otherwise.
And frankly his continuing to double down on this claim makes it harder to believe anything he says. THAT is what credibility is.
Kew simply doesn't want what I say to be true because he has a deep personal dislike of me, which any clinical psychologist will tell him completely biases his views. He keeps trying to claim "the math" says it's impossible for my strategy to perform as I've reported it to have during those four years. This is where a bit more education in advanced mathematics would have served him well. What you learn is there are limits to what math can tell us, because all it is is a tool. That is why it is human beings who created formulas, calculations, and the wherewithal to come up with them.
Everything isn't black & white kew, regardless of how much you wish it was in order to satisfy your craving for bias when it comes to me. You don't like it when I or anyone else questions your claims, calls you on your bs, or criticizes anything about you.
I would say Grow Up, then come back and try again.
I think Rob thinks his system is better than just "flat betting". I do not believe Rob actually and truly thinks his system is a long term money maker. Mickey, if you had a system that actually worked as he would have us believe, would you stop playing it? Sure you would take the time to enjoy the money and family, however, you wouldn't stop playing it. If he has time for the forums he has time to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI never said believing in it makes it so. I said I think he believes in his system. You can argue it to death, like I did for 13 years, but you are never going to change his mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnd Alan believes he saw 18 y.o.'s in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Believing something doesn't make it so. Not when the math says otherwise.
And frankly his continuing to double down on this claim makes it harder to believe anything he says. THAT is what credibility is.
I think that after I made almost 3 million easy dollars over 5 1/2 years, then that play died, I would pretty much be through with video poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI think Rob thinks his system is better than just "flat betting". I do not believe Rob actually and truly thinks his system is a long term money maker. Mickey, if you had a system that actually worked as he would have us believe, would you stop playing it? Sure you would take the time to enjoy the money and family, however, you wouldn't stop playing it. If he has time for the forums he has time to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI never said believing in it makes it so. I said I think he believes in his system. You can argue it to death, like I did for 13 years, but you are never going to change his mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I remember when Rob announced his retirement from "professional video poker play" I blasted him with "Who in the hell would retire a winning system?" In hindsight, and knowing what I know now, Rob wasn't retiring from his system play, he did that in 2004 when he found the glitch. He was retiring from the game king glitch because it wasn't available anymore. He pretty much didn't need video poker anymore.
If it were me, and I was grinding out 100K a year working legitimate advantages, then found a glitch that made me 500K a year for several years, then the play ended, there would be no way I would go back to the regular grind. With my financial position at that point I would have little incentive to go back to a grind play.
And you, mickey, probably wouldn't publicly comment on an actual video poker AP's recent death by proclaiming "eat dirt" with his family reading and mourning, thereby getting axed by Gaming Today. Can't blow one's cover, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And I Will always believe the math is skewed by casino action- I've seen too much week after week to disregard it. There's days when a small profit is the best option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There's a world of difference in how you play and how Rob's system supposedly works. You have to drive from place to place, walk around the whole casino, check these and those machines, etc. etc. That's a grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Rob's purported system isn't a grind in the same way. It'd be like being able to hole-card blackjack at nearly any casino, 24/7, heat-free. I'm sure you don't need me to explain how....I don't even have the words to describe this theoretical system....it would just be purely amazing. Talk about how much $3.5 million is....it's peanuts compared to what you could make using his system (if it worked as advertised).
It's not easy to understand unless you walk in another's shoes. Forums consume time--time sitting in an easy chair like right now, or time taking a break on the computer in-between running errands or working around the house. There is no 5-hour drive each way associated with any of that. As I've agreed to in the past, there was and is a lot of things I would do differently in vp had I lived in LV. There's also our retirement income stream that we prepared for years ago, which affected how aggressive I went after profiting from my play regardless of the method I used. If either my wife was gone or we didn't have this income and savings, you can bet the house that the casinos would have seen a lot more of me and I wouldn't have stopped going regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI think Rob thinks his system is better than just "flat betting". I do not believe Rob actually and truly thinks his system is a long term money maker. Mickey, if you had a system that actually worked as he would have us believe, would you stop playing it? Sure you would take the time to enjoy the money and family, however, you wouldn't stop playing it. If he has time for the forums he has time to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI never said believing in it makes it so. I said I think he believes in his system. You can argue it to death, like I did for 13 years, but you are never going to change his mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Rob, this response is a cop-out. Sure, it is easy to attack and put me down because I didn't have the opportunity to go to college. You only know that because I am honest about my life. I never claimed to be one of the math experts. I don't need to be. Others smarter than me (and apparently you) fill that role. Others with more education and mathematical expertise than you and not a single one of them thinks your 'system' is anything but voodoo nonsense and wishful thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Furthermore, if your 'system' had any merit to it, you would be able to explain it without all the put-downs and attacks that only serve as a deflection because you can't explain it.
I have asked 100 times what makes your negative expection play into a winning strategy because progression betting CAN NOT do that.
So let's make it 101. Can you give us anything mathematically factual besides 'you are smarter than me and everyone else including all the gambling math experts.'
Mickey, I don’t see how this post adds ”evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.” All it does it gives Rob’s opinion that this play could still be out there and gives some details on this play that were mostly known from the wired article.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I obviously don’t know if Rob exploited this play or not. Based on Rob’s timeline, he said he looked for this play for “better part of 4 years, not really knowing what I was doing or looking for”. This means that Rob was looking for this type of play for at least two years before it even existed. This is putting the pieces together from Rob’s posts and the wired article.
Most people would give up looking for something like this if they hadn’t found it after looking for it for two years, let alone four years. Again, this doesn’t prove or disprove if Rob exploited this play. Just something interesting to think about.
This looks as if you're trying too hard. If you were a real player instead of an armchair gambler, you'd be able to comprehend how for someone committed to looking for and finding/exploiting something....anything in vp machines, it's not that inconvenient doing it after playing a weekly session and before going home. And if I hadn't come across this I would still be looking just as fervently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Mickey, I don’t see how this post adds ”evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.” All it does it gives Rob’s opinion that this play could still be out there and gives some details on this play that were mostly known from the wired article.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I obviously don’t know if Rob exploited this play or not. Based on Rob’s timeline, he said he looked for this play for “better part of 4 years, not really knowing what I was doing or looking for”. This means that Rob was looking for this type of play for at least two years before it even existed. This is putting the pieces together from Rob’s posts and the wired article.
Most people would give up looking for something like this if they hadn’t found it after looking for it for two years, let alone four years. Again, this doesn’t prove or disprove if Rob exploited this play. Just something interesting to think about.
You are also no Inspector Gadget, as you seem to want others to see you as. If you understood what goes on with a play like this, how it affects one's approach, what kind of a person along with what level of life-training it takes to keep quiet as well as exploit a play such as this for so long, you'd understand where someone knowledgeable in gambling like mickey is coming from. And please tell me where the EXACT steps to putting this play down have ever been printed in any article.
Nothing like this can be 100% proven. Those who can use their heads but have a hatred of or bias towards me for all my past forum antics, will never want to say they believe this even if they really do. And I say this because there are others here who've had to put up with my nonsense, but who are able to separate the bs from what makes sense.
Red, I know when I put that "eat dirt" comment into print it wasn't my best day. But I did NOT get "fired" from writing my GT article. Eileen told me to start writing the details of what went into my strategy that was supposedly providing me with so many jackpots, and I told her I didn't detail it in my books nor would I put it into my column. That was with my resignation email. Besides, I was never paid a penny for any of my 350 or so articles at my request, not theirs. They wanted to pay me $100/. I think my articles were worth 10 times that. Have you seen how much that paper has shrunk since I left?
His work isn't worth a hill of beans. Wise up!!Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx71
What I do is not really a grind at all. I don't have a schedule and hit the casinos only when I want to. And I don't walk, I mosey. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__There's a world of difference in how you play and how Rob's system supposedly works. You have to drive from place to place, walk around the whole casino, check these and those machines, etc. etc. That's a grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Rob's purported system isn't a grind in the same way. It'd be like being able to hole-card blackjack at nearly any casino, 24/7, heat-free. I'm sure you don't need me to explain how....I don't even have the words to describe this theoretical system....it would just be purely amazing. Talk about how much $3.5 million is....it's peanuts compared to what you could make using his system (if it worked as advertised).
Yes, if the system worked you could make millions. But only if you are willing to put in the time. I've never maxed out my potential because I'm not willing to put in the hours to do it.
I was one of the first to criticize Rob for that obit. But I don't think Rob was fired over that. If GT found it so offensive then why did they publish it? I think Chuck di Rocco relished the controversy that Rob brought. When he died of course now Rob is dealing with someone else with different ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzAnd you, mickey, probably wouldn't publicly comment on an actual video poker AP's recent death by proclaiming "eat dirt" with his family reading and mourning, thereby getting axed by Gaming Today. Can't blow one's cover, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm