Getting tired of the trolling here -- please read this thread -- NEW RULES

[coach belly]

More AP BS...

I have decided I have had enough of this site.

I'm finished here.

Over and out.

Don't let the door hit ya where the dog should have bit ya!

[redietz]

Evidently coach is schooling me on the meaning of "over and out." Wait, I'll look it up. Coach, did you look it up? It seems to refer to temporary radio or CB communication, using a blend of words that is militarily unacceptable, but that acknowledges reception of a message and turns the cue back to the other party, but with the assumption that the speaker is cutting off that particular communication for unstated reasons.

I didn't know the above was BS. I also didn't know I was an AP.

Coach, you having issues today? I don't normally recommend Wikipedia, but it's simpler than Webster's. Give it a look.

Oh yeah, over and out.

[Biloxi Bill]

That`s pretty much all he does is looks up quotes from people....well can actually think of a few more things he "does" ......what a life

[coach belly]

2/22/2016 3:09pm

Thread: LoneStarHorse has asked to be removed

LoneStarHorse has asked that I cancel his account. It has been canceled.

2/23/2016 10:26am

Thread: Hi All

Have heard this is a great site..My name is Bill and am a professional horse player....I have earned 7 figures or more the last 15 years and consider myself an expert in my craft.I live very comfortably/extravagantly off my gambling winnings and consider it a blessing from God to earn my fortune doing exactly what I love.Nice to be here

[Rob.Singer]

That was an excellent explanation of unseen card effects. I haven't played blackjack in 25 years, and I know nothing, but that was cogent and clear. I don't see what can be argued with -- unseen cards tally as unseen cards. Eminently logical and obvious.

Leave it to you to blindly agree with some self-proclaimed AP who is now arguing against the math.

Kew, imagine how any video poker ap would fare if he or she (no, not a transgender freak) claimed they played based only on the removal of "cards seen" and not based on the removal of all cards dealt. The same goes for counting cards. You people claim to go strictly by the math, yet whenever you get called on your BS then suddenly there's room for error....and in this case, PLENTY of room for error in a game where the theoretical edge is minimal under perfect circumstances.

Thus, my point about how the lot of you would have been much better off taking statistics classes on your way to college degrees instead of fighting for crazy alternative lifestyle and making believe any of you know what you're talking about. And bringing up that fool Wong hardly helps your case. He's always been about self-perception in order to grow his commercial gaming sales.

Wise up.

[Biloxi Bill]

2/22/2016 3:09pm

Thread: LoneStarHorse has asked to be removed

LoneStarHorse has asked that I cancel his account. It has been canceled.

2/23/2016 10:26am

Thread: Hi All

Have heard this is a great site..My name is Bill and am a professional horse player....I have earned 7 figures or more the last 15 years and consider myself an expert in my craft.I live very comfortably/extravagantly off my gambling winnings and consider it a blessing from God to earn my fortune doing exactly what I love.Nice to be here

Looks like lil Betty gets a bit braver when he has his man Rob here..lol....once again, slowly, I am not this clown you are referring to....I would never run and ask for my account to be closed due to a nutless wonder like yourself....maybe it`s difficult for you to believe there is more than one person out there that thinks you`re a weasely punk....believe it boy

[kewlJ]

if he or she (no, not a transgender freak)

instead of fighting for crazy alternative lifestyle

More of the same. Your obsession when no one was talking about any such topic. You clearly are one conflicted closet case! Those that hate the most are always the biggest closet queens! It never, ever fails! The truth will set you free, Nancy!

The rest of your post....not even worth quoting, nor responding too. More gobbly gook! More denial of reality. More proof you live in your own fantasy world. At this point you are the mental patient sitting in the corner babbling to himself, completely irrelevant to anyone else.

[blackhole]

Your buddy, blackhole portrays himself as a fairly well off guy who many times in his life has blown off thousands of dollars in casinos like it was nothing and had a blast doing it. That is an unsubstantiated claim. How come you guys haven't brow beaten him over it and demanded proof?

Casinos don’t hand out W2’s after losing any amount of money that I could show you. They didn’t take any pictures of me holding a huge personal check paying off any markers at the cage. After losing 4K in a video poker machine it didn’t lock up and start playing music with big letters across the screen spelling “you’re a loser” so I could get a picture and post it online. And I certainly couldn’t claim loses on my tax returns without any proven wins that automatically get reported to the IRS.

I’m pretty sure I could have made a good first impression if Axel showed up. But, he was afraid I might mug him, or bother him endlessly for an AP move. In fact, if I liked Axel, he could have had a free RFB at my house whenever he visited the east coast. My good friend flies his own plane, and we could be in AC in 45 minutes.

Nickle and diming casinos, or making enough to survive is one thing. Making enough to live extravagantly like Biloxi Bill claims is another thing. (or was that part just another hyperbole also?) The bottom line is proving that you’re a loser long term in a casino is being proven every day by 99% of all gamblers. You guys are the 1% who claim the opposite and is why the other 99% don’t believe you.

Since this argument will never be proven here, the majority in my book rules.

[Biloxi Bill]

Your buddy, blackhole portrays himself as a fairly well off guy who many times in his life has blown off thousands of dollars in casinos like it was nothing and had a blast doing it. That is an unsubstantiated claim. How come you guys haven't brow beaten him over it and demanded proof?

Casinos don’t hand out W2’s after losing any amount of money that I could show you. They didn’t take any pictures of me holding a huge personal check paying off any markers at the cage. After losing 4K in a video poker machine it didn’t lock up and start playing music with big letters across the screen spelling “you’re a loser” so I could get a picture and post it online. And I certainly couldn’t claim loses on my tax returns without any proven wins that automatically get reported to the IRS.

I’m pretty sure I could have made a good first impression if Axel showed up. But, he was afraid I might mug him, or bother him endlessly for an AP move. In fact, if I liked Axel, he could have had a free RFB at my house whenever he visited the east coast. My good friend flies his own plane, and we could be in AC in 45 minutes.

Nickle and diming casinos, or making enough to survive is one thing. Making enough to live extravagantly like Biloxi Bill claims is another thing. (or was that part just another hyperbole also?) The bottom line is proving that you’re a loser long term in a casino is being proven every day by 99% of all gamblers. You guys are the 1% who claim the opposite and is why the other 99% don’t believe you.

Since this argument will never be proven here, the majority in my book rules.

I absolutely believe you

[kewlJ]

Casinos don’t hand out W2’s after losing any amount of money that I could show you. They didn’t take any pictures of me holding a huge personal check paying off any markers at the cage. After losing 4K in a video poker machine it didn’t lock up and start playing music with big letters across the screen spelling “you’re a loser” so I could get a picture and post it online.

Casinos provide win/loss statements both annually and for a specific trip or period, if you request it.

[blackhole]

Casinos don’t hand out W2’s after losing any amount of money that I could show you. They didn’t take any pictures of me holding a huge personal check paying off any markers at the cage. After losing 4K in a video poker machine it didn’t lock up and start playing music with big letters across the screen spelling “you’re a loser” so I could get a picture and post it online.

Casinos provide win/loss statements both annually and for a specific trip or period, if you request it.

I would be embarrassed to post one of those today.

[kewlJ]

I would be embarrassed to post one of those today.

I am not asking you to. I was just pointing out that your premise that no documentation was available if you wanted to, was incorrect.

It's an anonymous message board. I take people at their word, until I have a reason not to. This most often means that I find them posting things that are just nonsense (like Singer often does) and even then, I would never ask anyone to prove anything. That is NOT how an anonymous message board works. I just write them off as "one of those people that likes to talk, but doesn't have a clue as to what they are actually talking about" (like Singer)

As per you "being embarrassed to post one of those today"....I take it that means you lost big. I have no problem with that (or believing that). I hope you at least enjoyed yourself. Believe it or not...AP's are not anti-recreational gambler. We want (need) you to keep enjoying yourselves.

[blackhole]

As per you "being embarrassed to post one of those today"....I take it that means you lost big.

It didn’t mean I lost big. I predominantly play poker tournaments when I go to casinos. Very rare I even play cash games. My gambling days are long gone. My crazy win/lose statements would have to go back to the Castle, Taj, and Trump Plaza days. Although I did get a little carried away during my last visit to Vegas, it didn't even come close to the old days.

[Alan Mendelson]

And while you are at it show some proof that you hardly go to the office.

818-264-1555 Call and ask for Tony. If he's there, ask him about the package.

[Alan Mendelson]

So here's the thing: you are walking past a 6 deck table that just happens to be ready to deal the first hand after a shuffle. One player and the dealer. So as you are standing there the player receives, 3,6 and the dealer a 4. Player doubles his nine according to basic strategy and pulls a 4. dealer draws 3, 6, and 5 for a 18. Based on those 7 cards, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Again, this is proven by effect of removal vs IHA. There is no dispute...well not by anyone who has a clue.

But you are not standing by the table. You're sitting at another table. And you can't see the cards on the other table. No you can't. I went to Mirage (one of your approved casinos) and the tables were too far apart. And then I went to Bellagio and sat at a fucking table, and I couldn't see the cards at the next table.

We don't believe you have super vision or xray vision.

Now, if you would like to demonstrate it, I'll be there to watch. I will protect your identity Clark Kent. Just show me you can see.

[kewlJ]

So here's the thing: you are walking past a 6 deck table that just happens to be ready to deal the first hand after a shuffle. One player and the dealer. So as you are standing there the player receives, 3,6 and the dealer a 4. Player doubles his nine according to basic strategy and pulls a 4. dealer draws 3, 6, and 5 for a 18. Based on those 7 cards, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Again, this is proven by effect of removal vs IHA. There is no dispute...well not by anyone who has a clue.

But you are not standing by the table. You're sitting at another table. And you can't see the cards on the other table. No you can't.

Another example of your dishonesty, shyster Alan. I post an answer to a different concern about how a player knows he has an advantage, when not seeing all the cards, and specifically how few cards you actually need to see, to determine an advantage and you take that answer and post, and turn it to a completely different situation that wasn't being discussed. You have proven you are one dishonest journalist alright!

Now, if you would like to demonstrate it, I'll be there to watch. I will protect your identity Clark Kent. Just show me you can see.

I would never, ever do this, and you will be hard pressed to find any AP that would participate in what you are proposing. That you even think I would consider this proves you have no concept of AP, or the AP mentality.

[regnis]

So to the "guy" who has said he's "through posting on this forum because if all the insensitive comments"....more BS from an AP BSer.

However, I'm interested in you're comment about "mathematically proven so". Exactly where is that located, and if it's in your AP "PR Packet", I suggest you think of a new excuse.

It would have been better if any of you AP bsers would have taken any statistics classes in college before coming on forums trying to spread your load of crap. You might fare OK with somebody like Martha Stewart, who's shown she's far more comfortable taking in the nonsense of gay men than those normal guys who obviously intimidate her. But when you try to make up such nonsense and then whine about how it's "not your job to support any of it to anyone who questions you" then you lose.

Now comes the part when you and your ilk are being asked to explain how you know one table is better than the other, MATHEMATICALLY, when you know 100% of the cards on your table but have no idea how many cards you've missed at the other--or what they are. And while I understand that cocktail waitress asses getting in the way are irrelevant to someone as confused as you, please break your phony word about not responding to the brutes and splain how you see thru balls.

It isn't up to you whether I participate here or not. That is my decision, and I will do as I please. So just shut the fuck up you homophobic lying piece of shit.

Interesting that you yet again, injected some homophobic comment, where there was not even a hint of gay topic. You did that last week when I told the story of my former roommate/professional poker player, as well. You responded with some sort of homophobic comment, when the fact is there was no mention of anything even remotely having to do with gay topic in that story....and for good reason....my former roommate was and is not gay. He is straighter than you. I can even say he is FAR straighter than you because anyone as obsessed with homosexuality as you, bringing it up constantly, clearly is one huge closet case. It never fails to be the case, Nancy.

It isn't my job to show you the math. 30 years ago when Stanford Wong took back-counting, which was nothing new and rebranded it with his 'fancy' name, "wonging", he laid out all the math for everyone to see, based on the effect of removal of cards seen, vs the IHA (initial house advantage). Today it is even easier to do...just plug the cards into any decent computer simulator and tell us what it says?

So here's the thing: you are walking past a 6 deck table that just happens to be ready to deal the first hand after a shuffle. One player and the dealer. So as you are standing there the player receives, 3,6 and the dealer a 4. Player doubles his nine according to basic strategy and pulls a 4. dealer draws 3, 6, and 5 for a 18. Based on those 7 cards, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Again, this is proven by effect of removal vs IHA. There is no dispute...well not by anyone who has a clue.

So let's change the scenario just a bit. You are walking by the same table and see the same cards. Only difference is 2 decks have been played that you didn't see. Absolutely nothing changes! Based on those 7 cards seen, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Unseen cards are unseen cards....doesn't matter if they are unseen because they were played before you walked by, or they are unseen because they have yet to be played. Based only on the 7 cards seen....the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round!

Now, let's talk about missing a card or two here and there, whether this occurs while tracking a second table, or if you just happen to be distracted (in your case by a cute guy that you want to spew hate at and secretly fuck at the same time) and miss a card at your primary table. Makes absolutely no difference. Unseen cards are unseen cards. But the advantage is determined by what you do see.

But, never let the facts get in the way. Continue on with your blabbering about something you obviously know nothing about.

Kewl-I need some clarification on this. So you walk past a table (the one that is 2 decks in) and see a slight advantage based solely upon those 7 cards you see. How can you assume that the deck is positive based upon that small sample size? What if the deck was -15 before that deal? It seems to me that you would be deluding yourself that the deck is positive. I understand (don't necessarily agree with) the concept of the unseen cards and penetration, but I don't like the unknown and you are making quite an assumption into that unknown.

[AxelWolf]

So to the "guy" who has said he's "through posting on this forum because if all the insensitive comments"....more BS from an AP BSer.

However, I'm interested in you're comment about "mathematically proven so". Exactly where is that located, and if it's in your AP "PR Packet", I suggest you think of a new excuse.

It would have been better if any of you AP bsers would have taken any statistics classes in college before coming on forums trying to spread your load of crap. You might fare OK with somebody like Martha Stewart, who's shown she's far more comfortable taking in the nonsense of gay men than those normal guys who obviously intimidate her. But when you try to make up such nonsense and then whine about how it's "not your job to support any of it to anyone who questions you" then you lose.

Now comes the part when you and your ilk are being asked to explain how you know one table is better than the other, MATHEMATICALLY, when you know 100% of the cards on your table but have no idea how many cards you've missed at the other--or what they are. And while I understand that cocktail waitress asses getting in the way are irrelevant to someone as confused as you, please break your phony word about not responding to the brutes and splain how you see thru balls.

It isn't up to you whether I participate here or not. That is my decision, and I will do as I please. So just shut the fuck up you homophobic lying piece of shit.

Interesting that you yet again, injected some homophobic comment, where there was not even a hint of gay topic. You did that last week when I told the story of my former roommate/professional poker player, as well. You responded with some sort of homophobic comment, when the fact is there was no mention of anything even remotely having to do with gay topic in that story....and for good reason....my former roommate was and is not gay. He is straighter than you. I can even say he is FAR straighter than you because anyone as obsessed with homosexuality as you, bringing it up constantly, clearly is one huge closet case. It never fails to be the case, Nancy.

It isn't my job to show you the math. 30 years ago when Stanford Wong took back-counting, which was nothing new and rebranded it with his 'fancy' name, "wonging", he laid out all the math for everyone to see, based on the effect of removal of cards seen, vs the IHA (initial house advantage). Today it is even easier to do...just plug the cards into any decent computer simulator and tell us what it says?

So here's the thing: you are walking past a 6 deck table that just happens to be ready to deal the first hand after a shuffle. One player and the dealer. So as you are standing there the player receives, 3,6 and the dealer a 4. Player doubles his nine according to basic strategy and pulls a 4. dealer draws 3, 6, and 5 for a 18. Based on those 7 cards, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Again, this is proven by effect of removal vs IHA. There is no dispute...well not by anyone who has a clue.

So let's change the scenario just a bit. You are walking by the same table and see the same cards. Only difference is 2 decks have been played that you didn't see. Absolutely nothing changes! Based on those 7 cards seen, the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round. Unseen cards are unseen cards....doesn't matter if they are unseen because they were played before you walked by, or they are unseen because they have yet to be played. Based only on the 7 cards seen....the player will be at a slight advantage on the next round!

Now, let's talk about missing a card or two here and there, whether this occurs while tracking a second table, or if you just happen to be distracted (in your case by a cute guy that you want to spew hate at and secretly fuck at the same time) and miss a card at your primary table. Makes absolutely no difference. Unseen cards are unseen cards. But the advantage is determined by what you do see.

But, never let the facts get in the way. Continue on with your blabbering about something you obviously know nothing about.

Kewl-I need some clarification on this. So you walk past a table (the one that is 2 decks in) and see a slight advantage based solely upon those 7 cards you see. How can you assume that the deck is positive based upon that small sample size? What if the deck was -15 before that deal? It seems to me that you would be deluding yourself that the deck is positive. I understand (don't necessarily agree with) the concept of the unseen cards and penetration, but I don't like the unknown and you are making quite an assumption into that unknown.

What if the count was +15 before you walked by?

[AxelWolf]

Your buddy, blackhole portrays himself as a fairly well off guy who many times in his life has blown off thousands of dollars in casinos like it was nothing and had a blast doing it. That is an unsubstantiated claim. How come you guys haven't brow beaten him over it and demanded proof?

Casinos don’t hand out W2’s after losing any amount of money that I could show you. They didn’t take any pictures of me holding a huge personal check paying off any markers at the cage. After losing 4K in a video poker machine it didn’t lock up and start playing music with big letters across the screen spelling “you’re a loser” so I could get a picture and post it online. And I certainly couldn’t claim loses on my tax returns without any proven wins that automatically get reported to the IRS.

I’m pretty sure I could have made a good first impression if Axel showed up. But, he was afraid I might mug him, or bother him endlessly for an AP move. In fact, if I liked Axel, he could have had a free RFB at my house whenever he visited the east coast. My good friend flies his own plane, and we could be in AC in 45 minutes.

Nickle and diming casinos, or making enough to survive is one thing. Making enough to live extravagantly like Biloxi Bill claims is another thing. (or was that part just another hyperbole also?) The bottom line is proving that you’re a loser long term in a casino is being proven every day by 99% of all gamblers. You guys are the 1% who claim the opposite and is why the other 99% don’t believe you.

Since this argument will never be proven here, the majority in my book rules.

I was not afraid you would mug me(I have met with people who I was way more leery about than I am you), I don't get the feeling you are a criminal and never suggested that, I dont even think you are a bad guy in RL. It was a combination of things. I am not agiasnt meeting you at some point. AAMOF, had I known you would have taken it this way I would have made more of an effort, I somewhat regret not doing so.

[Rob.Singer]

I like this. I can bait kew with a few simple words that dance around "penis"!

It's also good watching how these "AP's" are trying to convince everyone else that they can back into a count. Again....statistics class. Whenever anyone has no choice other than to claim they formed a conclusion by going thru the back door (easy kew....) it's only because they had no idea how to work the problem with the formula.

This us what kew, etc. are trying here, and they're pretending "being in the vicinity" and "making educated guesses" are AP vehicles. However, they clearly understand no bj count is worth beans unless they have seen 100% of the cards. In fact, we're all aware of that fact.

Kew, give us another squealy rant. Only this time, keep your shirt on.