The Kicker Thread

There's only one person qualified to talk about how the kickers in DDBP & TDBP, the only two games I've ever played that involve kickers, are treated by me....and that's, OMG, ME! So I've started this new thread to clear the way for questions, comments, criticisms, and even lies, because, as everyone knows, some people have a very difficult time handling the truth....esp. if they just had to wait in a long line at the pharmacy again.

The Singer rules are simple and clear: A kicker NEVER is held in the performance of a special play. Period (please note: this is not the same "period" as Obama uses). And, in no case during any of my strategies will you ever see me hold a kicker with three Aces. Why? Because four Aces in either game and at any denomination, will ALWAYS attain either a mini-win (very infrequently) or overall win goal (very frequently).

The game of TDBP is a game I never played in any of my strategies while playing professionally until retiring in May of 2009. Since then I added it into my ARTT strategy only, and I've played it maybe a dozen times at most. While I clearly explained Aces & kickers above, it's the kickers with quad 2's thru 4's that present a unique situation, esp. after posting my $50,000 hit.

There is one single overriding task when playing my strategies, and that is attaining a win goal. Nothing is more important than getting it and leaving. Special plays that deviate from optimal strategy have played a fair role in session-ending wins over the years. So why did I hold the A kicker with three 3's? Simple--it was the optimal play that had the only chance of attaining my win goal, whereas the special play of holding only the three 3's did not.

Is my video with Alan about kickers confusing? Yes. Why? Because I said I would never hold a kicker with four 2's as a special play in TDBP. Well, it is not a special play when as the optimal play, it will attain my win goal if successful. Yet, I did hold the kicker. It seems contradictory, I agree. But remember, I had never played that game in any of my goal-oriented strategies, I was thinking of the issue as what my rules are for DDBP (where small quads with kickers are only 800 credit wins) which I frequently played, and I wasn't aware of how holding the kicker with trips was the optimal play, let alone a potential 2000 credit winner, even though I had played the game recreationally now and then in the distant past.

Clear yet?

Thanks Rob. What's clear is that what you said in the video changed because now you say reaching a win goal is more important than your special play. Well, in almost all cases, playing conventional strategy could make everyone closer to reaching their win goal. So, why play the Singer way? I have to ask because ONLY YOU know the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks Rob. What's clear is that what you said in the video changed because now you say reaching a win goal is more important than your special play. Well, in almost all cases, playing conventional strategy could make everyone closer to reaching their win goal. So, why play the Singer way? I have to ask because ONLY YOU know the answer.

---

Read my fingertips: The special plays have accounted for many of my session-ending wins, without which I very likely could have lost my entire gambling bankroll at any point in my professional career.

You never asked during the videos, but on my site for years, in my columns for years, and spoken on the radio & TV for years, has always been that nothing is more important to the Singer Play Strategies than win goals. Nothing ever changed. The video was simply focused on the point that holding kickers in kicker games is never a special play. That's why I sent you the picture of my unusual hold & win, to show you a kicker as the optimal hold--and not as a special play--actually worked. In that particular game, I've never held a kicker before, ever. In similar situations, I always made the special play hold of just the small trips, because if the quad hit, it would have been enough to attain my win goal. I posted one or two such wins on the jackpot thread last year.

Actually Rob, I look at your last trip report this way (and forgive me for being blunt):

The Singer method failed to reach your win goal and when you were deep in a hole you had to use the conventional/optimal play in order to win.

Is that correct? Or did you make NO "special plays" the entire time you were there? And with no special plays previously made the Singer method was never used?

I guess Obama and Singer are two peas in the same pod. Obama said you would "never" lose you insurance and Singer said he would "never" hold a kicker holding trips in TDB. Neither one of them lie very well.

Rather than say lie, how about saying both of them were mistaken?

In all fairness to Rob, he did say he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time, even though he has said he never holds a kicker. One could make the assumption that he was mistaken.

To be honest, this revelation will not make history. Okay, Rob was mistaken in his statement that he never holds kickers. If we accept that I think this particular issue is closed.

But if this particular issue is closed we still have the larger, overriding issue which is this: If only Rob knows what is best playing his methodology, what chance does anyone else have to follow his methodology. After all, until this new revelation about holding kickers I always thought Rob never holds kickers.

And that brings us back to the original discussion: if you have a system or method of play that is so complicated that it can't all be written down for the common man to understand (and heaven knows Rob is not the common man) then can you really call it a workable system or method of play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Actually Rob, I look at your last trip report this way (and forgive me for being blunt):

The Singer method failed to reach your win goal and when you were deep in a hole you had to use the conventional/optimal play in order to win.

Is that correct? Or did you make NO "special plays" the entire time you were there? And with no special plays previously made the Singer method was never used?

---

You keep trying Alan but you never get there. Sort of like arci as he keeps trying to talk himself out of my success as his heating bills keep piling up. :)

Remember that I also won the first two sessions, and that one was the result of a special play? Now, think back to my estimate of making them about 5% of the time. So how many sessions did I play that night? Yes....THREE! So that's, um, THIRTY THREE PERCENT! And YIKES!...that's a wee bit better than 5%! And, not all special plays hit big when they hit. I think you'd be a good candidate for a student in my first public class.

It's hardly as complicated as you keep insisting. If you can ever grasp onto the concept that win goals are the overriding factor in my strategies, it becomes very simple. Your videos show a majority of the main/basics ones that can end sessions. It's the smaller ones that make their living on hitting small winners that take time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Remember that I also won the first two sessions, and that one was the result of a special play? Now, think back to my estimate of making them about 5% of the time. So how many sessions did I play that night? Yes....THREE! So that's, um, THIRTY THREE PERCENT!

---

Well, which is it Rob: do you use your special plays 5% of the time, or do you use your special plays 33% of the time?
The way I just read what you wrote you WON 33% of your sessions ... but HOW MANY SPECIAL PLAYS were used in those sessions? Were they 5% of the hands played or 33% of the hands played? We don't know... and do you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

It's hardly as complicated as you keep insisting. If you can ever grasp onto the concept that win goals are the overriding factor in my strategies, it becomes very simple. Your videos show a majority of the main/basics ones that can end sessions. It's the smaller ones that make their living on hitting small winners that take time.

---

Rob it is complicated. It's very complicated. It's so complicated that you lost me.
If win goals are more important than special plays, and if special plays are used only 5% of the time, then why bother with special plays and why not just play conventional strategy and quit when you're ahead?

Rob... you're undermining the importance of your own system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rather than say lie, how about saying both of them were mistaken?

In all fairness to Rob, he did say he uses "special plays" only 5% of the time, even though he has said he never holds a kicker. One could make the assumption that he was mistaken.

To be honest, this revelation will not make history. Okay, Rob was mistaken in his statement that he never holds kickers. If we accept that I think this particular issue is closed.

But if this particular issue is closed we still have the larger, overriding issue which is this: If only Rob knows what is best playing his methodology, what chance does anyone else have to follow his methodology. After all, until this new revelation about holding kickers I always thought Rob never holds kickers.

And that brings us back to the original discussion: if you have a system or method of play that is so complicated that it can't all be written down for the common man to understand (and heaven knows Rob is not the common man) then can you really call it a workable system or method of play?

---

Rob has clearly made many many "mistakes" discussing his own strategy. I wonder why you are still willing to accept them as mistakes? A mistake is reasonable, but mistake after mistake after mistake makes it something different in my book. Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".

---

In effect, that's what it is. There are just too many variables within his "system" and then he has different systems, all with different initials.

"Special Plays" are understandable -- and I accept that they are used only some of the time. Yet, Rob has made different statements sometimes saying special plays are ALWAYS used and recently that they are not used when the overriding concern is the win goal.

In all fairness -- how do you teach that? How do you follow that?

The playing conditions change with each hand and so do the "rules" of what Singer-advice changes with each hand.

Now, there are some basic principles which are easy to follow and stand on their own:

1. Win goals
2. Loss Limits
3. Holding aces and not holding kickers
4. Holding trip aces in certain full house situations

These seem to hold "solid." but there are too many variables for all the rest.

But with that said, those "four" are pretty good on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

But with that said, those "four" are pretty good on their own.

---

That being said, if these four are the only usp's to Singer's strategy I'm not impressed and I sure as hell don't believe that alone made him win consistantly on -EV games (as much as 1 million dollars until now). If it was this "simple" the casinos wouldn't have invested so much money into game development to the point where they make 100's of millions in revenue a year.

So my conclusion, the fairy tale continues :)

I think win goals and loss limits are very powerful. I think most players keep churning their dollars till nothing is left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Rob has clearly made many many "mistakes" discussing his own strategy. I wonder why you are still willing to accept them as mistakes? A mistake is reasonable, but mistake after mistake after mistake makes it something different in my book. Sounds more like "making it up as we go along".

---

Careful now Vegas_lover, or Rob's gonna chime in and belittle you, accuse you of being a jealous addict and question your intelligence. :rolleyes:

Don't you see, Rob? Everyone plays so they don't have to think whenever they're playing. I mean, if you keep up with where you are while you're playing you couldn't nimble up those fingers for the ultimate speed test in order to play the most hands so that the machines, being truly random, will catch up and pay those big wins. So a "special play" is needed to automatically guarantee a win and you play it ALL THE TIME and not when a win goal suggests the decision. You see, reasoning is just too confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Don't you see, Rob? Everyone plays so they don't have to think whenever they're playing. I mean, if you keep up with where you are while you're playing you couldn't nimble up those fingers for the ultimate speed test in order to play the most hands so that the machines, being truly random, will catch up and pay those big wins. So a "special play" is needed to automatically guarantee a win and you play it ALL THE TIME and not when a win goal suggests the decision. You see, reasoning is just too confusing.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

---

I know. All decisions are made on win goals and if you don't know where you are in the game, how can a clear decision be made? Many times while playing artt I have wanted to hold just A's instead of two-pair, but the two pair returns me to square one with a possibility of a small win goal-for one small example. (bonus poker). But if a full house wouldn't return me to square one, I hold the A's. So just playing without any idea of where you are usually means you are just casually poppin' the buttons..
Not saying my play is comparable to Rob's....just that I make decisions based on win goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Not saying my play is comparable to Rob's....just that I make decisions based on win goals.

---

Unfortunately, from what you've posted here, you are not winning, you have some kind of a gambling problem, and your hero has reported that his recent big wins are because of phenomenal luck and not because of his system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Unfortunately, from what you've posted here, you are not winning, you have some kind of a gambling problem, and your hero has reported that his recent big wins are because of phenomenal luck and not because of his system.

---

My last reply on this topic: ALL wins are because of luck.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

My last reply on this topic: ALL wins are because of luck.:D

---

That is probably the most honest thing ever posted in a discussion about Rob Singer's strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That is probably the most honest thing ever posted in a discussion about Rob Singer's strategy.

---

See if you can twist this: every time YOU win it's because of good luck....and you lose overall. Ever think if you used some sort of strategy to go with that need you have to play so often that you might do better?

I do have a strategy Rob. I play perfect strategy as a matter of fact, and I use win goals and loss limits. Who said I lost?
The difference between you and me is that I don't have to boast about my wins. I have nothing to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I do have a strategy Rob. I play perfect strategy as a matter of fact, and I use win goals and loss limits. Who said I lost?
The difference between you and me is that I don't have to boast about my wins. I have nothing to prove.

---

And no reason to make up stories. Slingslot makes no sense at all but then again he appears to be a Singer groupie and not making sense seems to be the standard within that crowd.

@ a2a3dseddie I've already accepted I'm not intelligent enough to understand Rob's "system " but thank God I'm not the only one. I'm glad to let you know that Singer has some inside info about all Europeans being slow. So it's cool, I don't feel left out anymore :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, which is it Rob: do you use your special plays 5% of the time, or do you use your special plays 33% of the time?
The way I just read what you wrote you WON 33% of your sessions ... but HOW MANY SPECIAL PLAYS were used in those sessions? Were they 5% of the hands played or 33% of the hands played? We don't know... and do you know?



Rob it is complicated. It's very complicated. It's so complicated that you lost me.
If win goals are more important than special plays, and if special plays are used only 5% of the time, then why bother with special plays and why not just play conventional strategy and quit when you're ahead?

Rob... you're undermining the importance of your own system.

---

You just aren't able to understand simple words any more Alan. It's like I'm trying to communicate with someone who just can't pass a test they'd have aced years ago. The 33%--now read carefully. I played THREE sessions; I won ONE of the three sessions by using a session-ending special play; 1 divided by 3 = 33%. Wow....there it is! I'm embarrassed to even have to say this: that 33% is for this visit only, not an avg. for all of my play ever. Sink in?

Your last para. looks like you were just trying to air your frustration of being confused. You'll only be able to comprehend things if you clear your mind of thinking how much you crave just being able to sit at some machine right NOW to play video poker, and think of it as an effort you're trying to accomplish for work. Yes....it is THAT important, but only if you care enough to be motivated to understand it. Otherwise, you'll stay lost.I can only sum it up for you. You're unable to grasp the simple details unless you do what I just wrote: In a structured progression such as mine, conventional strategy can end sessions by attaining at least the minimum win goal about 65% of the time. Had I done that I would have probably--but not absolutely--been an overall loser in my years of playing professionally. Using special plays bumped that rate up another 20% or so, and they constantly contributed to losing less when I lost & winning more when I won. For instance, my one 5-credit $25 royal was the result of a special play; my $50k quad Aces with a kicker at your beloved Ceasars Palace high limit room was the result of a special play; two $30k winners at Aquarius were the results of special plays. Yes most special plays don't convert, but when they do and it ends a session, because my next bet is at my lowest denomination, the # of failed special plays at lower denominations is almost irrelevant compared to the big money already won. And that is exactly why giving up little bits of ev here and there are mathematically inconsequential "over time" when you're playing for a win goal.

Just keep telling yourself when pondering SPS: Conventional Strategy Only On Mostly -EV Machines = a probable slight overall loss; Add In Special Plays = a highly probable overall significant win. Do with this like your social justice idol Obama told us all to do over the holidays, and discuss healthcare at the dinner table every night, only this time it's vp and it's a proven success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I do have a strategy Rob. I play perfect strategy as a matter of fact, and I use win goals and loss limits. Who said I lost?
The difference between you and me is that I don't have to boast about my wins. I have nothing to prove.

---

YOU said you lost by rule. And no, I don't really believe you have the aptitude or comprehension--or the patience to have studied & learned--to play perfect strategy.

You felt compelled enough to start up that jackpot thread when you know it would be you who posted the most big hits in it since no one else here is addicted to playing as much as you. You really think dreaming penny-pinchers like Vegaslover is going to ever do anything in that thread but ooze envy when a typical European eyeballs even more American success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You really think dreaming penny-pinchers like Vegaslover is going to ever do anything in that thread but ooze envy when a typical European eyeballs even more American success?

---

Whahahaha, don't worry about my wallet Rob I'm pretty happy with the content of it :)

Oh yeah Rob, you're a true right wing Republican. Clueless to reality. Keep the insult coming and keep digging that hole. And we dumb Europeans will continue to dream about your version of the American dream (sarcasm intented)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

YOU said you lost by rule. And no, I don't really believe you have the aptitude or comprehension--or the patience to have studied & learned--to play perfect strategy.

---

First of all I am not going to discuss my wins or losses on a public web forum. What I say publicly is what I want said publicly.

Secondly, it doesn't take being a genius to follow perfect strategy for Bonus poker or Aces and Faces. To be honest, it doesn't take much of an IQ at all.

Rob, do you really think "video poker players" deserve to be on a pedestal?

Rob: I simply wanted to say that regardless of who is right or wrong about VP you can be a funny guy sometimes! :D LOL


Even for the non-VP players you sometimes do provide +EV (Entertainment Value)

I have a more serious question:

Why do you think people become addicted to VP? Is it simply the greed for more money or something else?

You seem to have a deep understanding of something here when you talk about "craving action" and wanting to sit at a machine right NOW, etc.

I have sometimes wondered if the vibrant colors on an IGT VP machine screen along with the hyper-stimulating casino atmosphere & pulse-pounding casino mailers help to make people more hooked on casino gambling? (I will credit you for using "pulse-pounding" as a phrase years ago on this...)

I find it hilarious sometimes when I receive a $3,000 check in the mail and it really looks dull and bland compared to the lovely vibrant colors of a $20 casino coupon mailer.

MORE STUFF: Whether or not it's the power of casino marketing and whether those huge palaces can overwhelm our sense of control, I think there is a whole lot more you could explain in this area. The human side of the VP addiction equation.
You yourself said VP is the "most addictive game on the planet".
Robert Hunter, one of the leading gambling addiction researchers/counselors (if not THE leader) in Las Vegas calls VP the "crack cocaine of gambling" (his clients are FAR, FAR more addicted to VP than any other game).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas_lover

Whahahaha, don't worry about my wallet Rob I'm pretty happy with the content of it :)

Oh yeah Rob, you're a true right wing Republican. Clueless to reality. Keep the insult coming and keep digging that hole. And we dumb Europeans will continue to dream about your version of the American dream (sarcasm intented)

---

Of COURSE your needs are few! Isn't that the goal of failed social justice throughout Europe....and isn't that why you people have never been able to defend yourselves? (Truth intended :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

First of all I am not going to discuss my wins or losses on a public web forum. What I say publicly is what I want said publicly.

Secondly, it doesn't take being a genius to follow perfect strategy for Bonus poker or Aces and Faces. To be honest, it doesn't take much of an IQ at all.

Rob, do you really think "video poker players" deserve to be on a pedestal?

---

Not going to discuss your wins or losses? You've been blabbing about it here for years. Only I've never cared enuf to ask.

Alan, even if I gave you two weeks to study perfect strategy for ANY game, I guarantee you would not get it right or even close to right. How? By watching you constantly read without understanding what anybody says right here. You play for entertainment correct?

No idea what the pedestal means.

Rob, let me clue you in: perfect strategy for Bonus, Aces and Faces, or Jacks or Better, ain't hard at all.

Now, I don't pretend to know any of the deuces wild games... and I steer clear of them.

But if there any doubts about what cards to hold in Bonus, Aces and Faces, or Jacks can quickly be resolved by reaching into your pocket and looking at a strategy card from BOB DANCER or checking a website on your smart phone.

Gimme a break with this high and mighty crap already... and that's what the "pedestal" refers to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Rob: I simply wanted to say that regardless of who is right or wrong about VP you can be a funny guy sometimes! :D LOL


Even for the non-VP players you sometimes do provide +EV (Entertainment Value)

I have a more serious question:

Why do you think people become addicted to VP? Is it simply the greed for more money or something else?

You seem to have a deep understanding of something here when you talk about "craving action" and wanting to sit at a machine right NOW, etc.

I have sometimes wondered if the vibrant colors on an IGT VP machine screen along with the hyper-stimulating casino atmosphere & pulse-pounding casino mailers help to make people more hooked on casino gambling? (I will credit you for using "pulse-pounding" as a phrase years ago on this...)

I find it hilarious sometimes when I receive a $3,000 check in the mail and it really looks dull and bland compared to the lovely vibrant colors of a $20 casino coupon mailer.

MORE STUFF: Whether or not it's the power of casino marketing and whether those huge palaces can overwhelm our sense of control, I think there is a whole lot more you could explain in this area. The human side of the VP addiction equation.
You yourself said VP is the "most addictive game on the planet".
Robert Hunter, one of the leading gambling addiction researchers/counselors (if not THE leader) in Las Vegas calls VP the "crack cocaine of gambling" (his clients are FAR, FAR more addicted to VP than any other game).

---

When I came on the scene in 2000, my website, my book, and I talked about how advantage play made me a vp addict, and how I finally realized that, win or lose, video poker is the most addictive casino game ever invented. I kept telling everyone that their only hope was to turn the tables on the casinos....by learning to control the game, the slot club, the offers, the ability to obtain more cash than you came in with via the cash advance machines/ATM's/casino credit, and the exciting ambience instead of allowing it all to control you.

And that's exactly what I've done, to the apparent dismay of many. Why? Because almost every--or every--vp player loses overall and worse, they know they are addicted yet they will never admit to it. Look at Alan as an example, and I'm not just picking on him. He plays more than Wilt the Stilt bedded women, yet he'll dodge the thought and yelp at will when simply confronted with the word. I offer players an opportunity to learn to alter their controlled behavior by the casinos if they want it. But the compulsion to just hurry to the casino environment so that craving for their next dose of gambling-induced intermittent satisfaction is so overwhelmingly strong that I probably remain alone as the only consistently very successful player who actually controls every casino experience I choose to become involved in.

Rob, of course if you were addicted to video poker then it had to be the most addictive casino game ever invented.

Rob, say what you want about how often I play you will never catch me walking around a casino with $70,000 or would you find me going ten thousand dollars in the hole trying to play catch up by going to denominations that I know are well above reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Of COURSE your needs are few! Isn't that the goal of failed social justice throughout Europe....and isn't that why you people have never been able to defend yourselves? (Truth intended :))

---

Thank you for proving my point about being clueless. Not even gonna go there, it would actually give the impression that anything you say would mean something, which it doesn't. Back to the trailer Bubba.

All I can say is thank goodness I'm not chained to strategy cards, books, etc. This is the age of freedom in VP thought! Why, I've even made some holds Rob wouldn't. Tsk, tsk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, of course if you were addicted to video poker then it had to be the most addictive casino game ever invented.

Rob, say what you want about how often I play you will never catch me walking around a casino with $70,000 or would you find me going ten thousand dollars in the hole trying to play catch up by going to denominations that I know are well above reality.

---

You won't be walking around those casinos you go to with $70k because you're not prepared for it, you can't lose that much on one visit, and you've gone thru enuf divorces. And just imagine the horror of not being able to make all those drives to the casinos!

Frequent casino visits is your life Alan. It may or may not mean you have a gambling problem--only you can know that truth. But addicted to casino action you are. Now if you want to minimalize that by saying I'm addicted to my RV or maybe traveling, no problem. But those other type of activities you and others always bring up when that "horrible"...even "frightening" addiction word surfaces, then deflection is simply your way of dealing with facing all the facts. But not to worry--your thoughts will quickly turn to the anxiety of being able to play more frenzied vp or roll those lovely dice out of your sweaty hands, and all will once again be well. We all want to be well, don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

All I can say is thank goodness I'm not chained to strategy cards, books, etc. This is the age of freedom in VP thought! Why, I've even made some holds Rob wouldn't. Tsk, tsk.

---

I once forgot that the 7 of spades that I discarded was a penalty card. Over the next million hands that cost me 0ne cent. I may never recover. And I thought I knew perfect strategy. Sheeeeeesh.

Regnis, you're missing my "special holds." If the cocktail waitress has a bigger chest than Dolly Parton (I live near Dollywood), I don't hold anything and order more drinks. If the cocktail waitress is smaller than Parton, but resembles Raquel Welch (remember her?), I hold everything and order more drinks.

Note: This ties into my New year's resolution to be less politically correct in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You won't be walking around those casinos you go to with $70k because you're not prepared for it, you can't lose that much on one visit, and you've gone thru enuf divorces. And just imagine the horror of not being able to make all those drives to the casinos!

Frequent casino visits is your life Alan. It may or may not mean you have a gambling problem--only you can know that truth. But addicted to casino action you are. Now if you want to minimalize that by saying I'm addicted to my RV or maybe traveling, no problem. But those other type of activities you and others always bring up when that "horrible"...even "frightening" addiction word surfaces, then deflection is simply your way of dealing with facing all the facts. But not to worry--your thoughts will quickly turn to the anxiety of being able to play more frenzied vp or roll those lovely dice out of your sweaty hands, and all will once again be well. We all want to be well, don't we?

---

What a gem. You always seem to find new lows. And the really sad part about it is you're proud of it. Life must be very lonely on your planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Regnis, you're missing my "special holds." If the cocktail waitress has a bigger chest than Dolly Parton (I live near Dollywood), I don't hold anything and order more drinks. If the cocktail waitress is smaller than Parton, but resembles Raquel Welch (remember her?), I hold everything and order more drinks.

Note: This ties into my New year's resolution to be less politically correct in public.

---

Last special hold I used got me slapped.

I wonder if Alan is regretting his decision to allow our favorite narcissistic prevaricator to pollute his forums again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I wonder if Alan is regretting his decision to allow our favorite narcissistic prevaricator to pollute his forums again?

---

Well Archi, it's his forum so it's his call. But in all honesty he should be regretting that decision. Nothing good has come from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I wonder if Alan is regretting his decision to allow our favorite narcissistic prevaricator to pollute his forums again?

---

I only regret that Rob has returned to his regular routine of insulting people instead of offering supporting evidence for his claims.

I still hope that he will use the Forum to provide valuable information.

I'm hoping for a menage a trois with Angelina Jolie and Miley Cyrus.

I'm still trying to figure out how many here know what "prevaricator" means. But kudos to arci for getting that word into this forum. It's usually only used when talking about our politicians here in Illinois.

Damn I missed that big word. In TV writing classes we were told not to use words with more than two syllables.

I remember the "Fog Index." Nowadays, nobody writes well enough to have a high fog index.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm hoping for a menage a trois with Angelina Jolie and Miley Cyrus.

---

Make that Eva Mendes and Kaley Cuoco and I'm ready to go :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm hoping for a menage a trois with Angelina Jolie and Miley Cyrus.

---

The probability of that happening is likely better than Alan getting his wishes. Reminds of the line from Dumb and Dumber.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...fr=ytff1-yff17

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The probability of that happening is likely better than Alan getting his wishes. Reminds of the line from Dumb and Dumber.

---

I have to agree it wouldn't be verisimilitudinous.