Originally Posted by
Rob.Singer
Finally, somebody said it....and I will clarify it. The biggest HOAX as perpetrated by the self-described "AP" crowd--and fortified by any number of ap groupies--is that these people use tournaments, drawings, giveaways, and even a sunny day or two as props for their supposed crutch to go from 99.5% to 100.1%, thereby creating a "winner" out of thin air. And that's exactly why these imposter AP's from WoV show up here with nothing other than claims of wildly high "edges" while cloaked in anonymity, secrecy....and to the well informed reader--BS.
redietz, my statement that no one makes money off of FPDW stands. Unless and until someone comes forward with proof that they've won on these machines over time without abnormal good luck, I'll believe the numbers I saw on the Wynn machines--and then published them with their permission in GT. And guess who were the exclusive players of every FPDW game there? Yes, every big-ego AP who claims to be of the best players, the fastest players, the most accurate players, and the most feared players ever to come down the pike. Over time, they all lost.
Rob, I have a few problems with your assertions. First, what meter did you get to look at? Those were multi-game machines. There is a coin-in/coin-out for overall results of the machine that includes all games. If you want to see what each individual game held then you have to go to different coin-in/coin-out meters.
Second, what issue of Gaming Today did you publish this in? Can you put up a copy of the article here? Or do you have some excuse like a phantom storage unit in New Mexico? If you published it then it would have been big news in the gambling forums, especially vpFREE. But I don't recall any such news. Or maybe this is just another fairy tale you concocted.
Third, that bank got a lot of action. Almost 24/7 for the short time it lasted. So they were making 1.5% on dollar games? And they pulled it? The first question is why? But you know what happened. When they pulled the game it turned that bank into a ghost town. Now, I understand, maybe when they pulled it they were thinking "we could make more money off these guys if we take that game off and let them play the sucker games." But like I said, the bank went from fulltime action to zero action. Now, after seeing that, don't you think those execs would have thought "Well, that didn't work. Let's put the game back on and just take the 1.5%."
What would you rather have, Rob, 3% of nothing or 1.5% of something?