The WoV Thread

[Bill Yung]

The world hasn't had a good crucifixion, in a long time.

[MisterV]

Oh, so you watch MSLSD. How much have you learned from Maddow on Hillary's collusion with the Russians, vis a vie, the Steele Dossier?

I don't recall hearing her talk about that, but then again Hillary lost the election, she's yesterday's news.

The issue is whether Trump won "fair and square," and that question is what is most in need of verification.

Even the most ardent Trump supporters will have to rethink things if it is shown that collusion existed, and the circle seems to be tightening in that regard.

I'm no fan of Clinton; I read "Clinton Cash" pre-election and agree she is a venal, crooked politician.

FWIW I voted Libertarian, as usual.

Just give Mueller a bit more time, he'll announce his findings and lay out any evidence when he's ready; no rush to judgment with him on this matter of great national importance.

I hope no collusion is proven: a constitutional crisis is not a pretty thing.

[redietz]

Oh, so you watch MSLSD. How much have you learned from Maddow on Hillary's collusion with the Russians, vis a vie, the Steele Dossier?

I don't recall hearing her talk about that, but then again Hillary lost the election, she's yesterday's news.

The issue is whether Trump won "fair and square," and that question is what is most in need of verification.

Even the most ardent Trump supporters will have to rethink things if it is shown that collusion existed, and the circle seems to be tightening in that regard.

I'm no fan of Clinton; I read "Clinton Cash" pre-election and agree she is a venal, crooked politician.

FWIW I voted Libertarian, as usual.

Just give Mueller a bit more time, he'll announce his findings and lay out any evidence when he's ready; no rush to judgment with him on this matter of great national importance.

I hope no collusion is proven: a constitutional crisis is not a pretty thing.

[LarryS]

I dont know if there will be a definitive smoking gun uncovered. There will be proof that his son and or son in law met with russians, but they will insist they never discussed the contents of the meetings with donald. We all know the probability of no discussion are minimal. However try to prove that.

[redietz]

I tend to use the word "disdain" in any sentence with Ms. Clinton. I part company mightily with mickeycrimm on the Trumpster. I have followed this dude for decades; went to the opening of the Taj and all that. Listened to a biography while en route, and have kept up with his many adventures over the years. I agree with probably half of Trump's policies, but anybody who voted for this guy needs to be more responsible. If you can't make a go of it in the casino business (repeatedly), and your businesses have been involved in two lawsuits a week for 30 years, and you needed to get yourself out of being completely underwater with requests to Italian entrepreneurs and (after that failed) a German bank underwritten by the Russian mob, well, good luck as Prez.

Not that I care much, might you. It's entertaining and I probably have a decade to live, so if everything goes to hell, just more entertainment value. Speaking of entertainment, it's about time Hollywood took ownership of the fact they created President Trump with their trash reality show plopping a patriarchal figure with complete power and unquestioned judgement into the public consciousness every week. Hollywood caused Trump as president, so they should take ownership that greed (in this case ratings greed) has consequences that aren't all that tough to anticipate if your electorate isn't paying much attention.

[mickeycrimm]

Oh, so you watch MSLSD. How much have you learned from Maddow on Hillary's collusion with the Russians, vis a vie, the Steele Dossier?

I don't recall hearing her talk about that, but then again Hillary lost the election, she's yesterday's news.

The issue is whether Trump won "fair and square," and that question is what is most in need of verification.

Even the most ardent Trump supporters will have to rethink things if it is shown that collusion existed, and the circle seems to be tightening in that regard.

I'm no fan of Clinton; I read "Clinton Cash" pre-election and agree she is a venal, crooked politician.

FWIW I voted Libertarian, as usual.

Just give Mueller a bit more time, he'll announce his findings and lay out any evidence when he's ready; no rush to judgment with him on this matter of great national importance.

I hope no collusion is proven: a constitutional crisis is not a pretty thing.

I can tell you right now that no collusion between Trump and the russians will be found and Mueller is up to no good. In the end he will write that he couldn't find any hard evidence but there is a smoking gun. This will give the Dems the ammunition they need, if they win back the majority in the midterms, to impeach Trump. It's an easy thing to vote for impeachment in the House when you hold the majority. But the Dems will never get the 67 votes in the Senate it will take to unseat Trump.

The idea that Trump colluded with the Russians came out of the Steele dossier which was fictitious bullshit written by russians. Hillary's collusion with the russians is not past news and is not irrelevant....but Dems sure want to sweep it under the rug. The Dems are charging Trump, without evidence, of doing the very thing they were doing.

About 93% of stories on Trump by the mainstream news media are negative. So I don't blame you for believing the way you do if that is your only news source. The mainstream news media is the big right arm of the Democratic Party and pretty much don't write anything but fiction on Trump.

[pepe]

the Steele dossier which was fictitious bullshit written by russians.

even better, it was written by a /pol/ shitposter trying to see what they could get the gullible media to believe

[MisterV]

If collusion is found and charges are leveled, I've little doubt that Trump will pardon everybody, including himself.

He's that kind of guy.

[Bill Yung]

Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.

[tableplay]

even better, it was written by a /pol/ shitposter trying to see what they could get the gullible media to believe

The media is not gullible IMHO Pepe, but rather they are complicit in the deception. Basically Trump does not have puppet strings tied to him - both major parties want a candidate who has puppet strings attached, not a loose cannon like Trump as it threatens their wealth and power (IMHO). When someone like Trump gets elected to the presidency, it becomes so clear how corrupt the media and the branches of government are.

[mickeycrimm]

Babs, Romes, ams288, and Terapined, the leaders in the Trump hating at Wov, God bless their little hearts, just don't have any street smarts. They have no clue that Trump haters are exactly what Putin and his trolls were/are after creating. To me it just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Russians ultimate goal is a weakened America. How do you do that? By polarizing it's people. When we are to busy infighting we spend less time taking care of other issues and keeping an eye on the rest of the world.

No one, including the Russians, thought Trump could win the election. They were as surprised as anyone when he did. The material they put out before the election wasn't pro Trump, it was anti-Hillary. They were after undermining a Hillary presidency. Because that's who they thought would win. And it really came down to just a few to many black voters in Detroit and Milwaukee staying home on election day or Hillary would have won.

Why would the Russians want Trump as President? They easily manipulated Hillary with the Uranium One deal and wound up with 25% of America's uranium. You can bet your ass they hacked her private email server too. Do you really think they thought they had a better chance of manipulating Trump? When Trump won, surprising the hell out of the Russians, they immediately switched to anti-Trump material. Shortly after taking office Trump bombed Syria over their use of chemical weapons, something the Russians absolutely did not like. And now he has given the greenlight to Keystone, Dakota Access and ANWR which is going to thoroughly weaken the Russian position in the world oil market. You can bet your ass Putin was well aware of Trump possibly doing that if he got elected--and he knew the Democrats would never make a move like that. I suspect Trump has other moves planned against the Russians. So idiots like Terapined really need to get their heads out of their asses on Trump being a puppet of Putin.

As the crow flies the real puppets, dupes, of Vladimir Putin are the Trump haters. Putin is laughing his ass off at how stupid they are. They are playing right into his master plan of a weakened America. A divided, polarized, America is what Putin is after and the Trump haters are helping him do it.

A Trump hater is a de facto Putin lover.

[MisterV]

Putin is after what Russia has wanted for centuries: recognition as a world power, respect, a warm water port, and political / trading allies.

Interesting to see how Russia has risen from the ashes of the failed USSR.

[LarryS]

I am not well versed in this. But it seems they have "risen" militarily but at ground level in communities the people are not better off. I dont think the quality of life for the average citizen has improved.

[MisterV]

The same can be said about we Americans.

Regardless, we judge the strength and power of other countries based primarily on military / politcal factors, not social.

The Scandinavian countries have a happy, well-grounded population and are arguably "number one" in that regard, yet they are not a world power.

It would be great if the most powerful countries had the happiest populations, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

America is circling the toilet, with rampant disenchantment as evidence by gun violence, drug addiction, and massive incarceration of its denizens.

Let's just hope we figure it out before the whole thing disapperars in a blinding nuclear flash.

[Bill Yung]

A Trump hater is a de facto Putin lover.

In this case, the same for Trump lovers.

Your enemy's enemy isn't your friend when he divides and conquers, or profits by the misfortunes of others.

[Bill Yung]

Let's just hope we figure it out before the whole thing disapperars in a blinding nuclear flash.

Don't worry.

[pepe]

They've got a thread on the Aladdin's on WoV. I can tell that no one in the thread has much experience with the game. They are wondering about the frequency of the lamps landing in the screen. I tracked it through 2000 spins, a pretty small sample space but good enough to get an idea. The frequencies I got, based on pure empirical evidence look like this:

1st reel: 22 spins
2nd reel: 29
3rd reel: 26
4th reel: 12
5th reel: 10

The 4th and 5th reels are pretty much irrelevant in calculating what is a play. If there are 2 or 3 built up in each one they will most likely be gone by the time you light up one or more of the first three reels. What you hope to happen is they are built back up again when you start lighting up the first three reels.

I use only the first three reels in determining what is or isn't an advantage play. If I find 3 lit up in either the 1st or the 2nd column it's a go. I won't play a bare 3 in the 3rd column. But if the first two columns have one each or at least one of them have a 2 it's a go. Three 2's is a go. And I'll play any combination of 2-2-1.

I have a lot of losing plays but make about 15% on the action overall. A lot of the payback is in the free games which you won't get every play. The question on WoV is when you get the free games should you choose:

2 free games with the 1st, 3rd and 5th columns wild;
6 free games with the 2nd and 4th columns wild;
15 free games with the 3 column wild.

Choosing the 6 free games gets the best return.

What would be the minimum roll you would recommend for this play at each bet level assuming 60 cents is the lowest bet level?

[mickeycrimm]

They've got a thread on the Aladdin's on WoV. I can tell that no one in the thread has much experience with the game. They are wondering about the frequency of the lamps landing in the screen. I tracked it through 2000 spins, a pretty small sample space but good enough to get an idea. The frequencies I got, based on pure empirical evidence look like this:

1st reel: 22 spins
2nd reel: 29
3rd reel: 26
4th reel: 12
5th reel: 10

The 4th and 5th reels are pretty much irrelevant in calculating what is a play. If there are 2 or 3 built up in each one they will most likely be gone by the time you light up one or more of the first three reels. What you hope to happen is they are built back up again when you start lighting up the first three reels.

I use only the first three reels in determining what is or isn't an advantage play. If I find 3 lit up in either the 1st or the 2nd column it's a go. I won't play a bare 3 in the 3rd column. But if the first two columns have one each or at least one of them have a 2 it's a go. Three 2's is a go. And I'll play any combination of 2-2-1.

I have a lot of losing plays but make about 15% on the action overall. A lot of the payback is in the free games which you won't get every play. The question on WoV is when you get the free games should you choose:

2 free games with the 1st, 3rd and 5th columns wild;
6 free games with the 2nd and 4th columns wild;
15 free games with the 3 column wild.

Choosing the 6 free games gets the best return.

What would be the minimum roll you would recommend for this play at each bet level assuming 60 cents is the lowest bet level?

I've played off hundreds of then and IIRC my worst loser was 83 units/bets. So I would recommend a bankroll of 200 units/bets for each level.

In the case of the 60 cent bet level that would be $120, $6 bet level, $1200, etc.

[mickeycrimm]

They've got a thread on the Aladdin's on WoV. I can tell that no one in the thread has much experience with the game. They are wondering about the frequency of the lamps landing in the screen. I tracked it through 2000 spins, a pretty small sample space but good enough to get an idea. The frequencies I got, based on pure empirical evidence look like this:

1st reel: 22 spins
2nd reel: 29
3rd reel: 26
4th reel: 12
5th reel: 10

The 4th and 5th reels are pretty much irrelevant in calculating what is a play. If there are 2 or 3 built up in each one they will most likely be gone by the time you light up one or more of the first three reels. What you hope to happen is they are built back up again when you start lighting up the first three reels.

I use only the first three reels in determining what is or isn't an advantage play. If I find 3 lit up in either the 1st or the 2nd column it's a go. I won't play a bare 3 in the 3rd column. But if the first two columns have one each or at least one of them have a 2 it's a go. Three 2's is a go. And I'll play any combination of 2-2-1.

I have a lot of losing plays but make about 15% on the action overall. A lot of the payback is in the free games which you won't get every play. The question on WoV is when you get the free games should you choose:

2 free games with the 1st, 3rd and 5th columns wild;
6 free games with the 2nd and 4th columns wild;
15 free games with the 3 column wild.

Choosing the 6 free games gets the best return.

What would be the minimum roll you would recommend for this play at each bet level assuming 60 cents is the lowest bet level?

I've played off hundreds of then and IIRC my worst loser was 83 units/bets. So I would recommend a bankroll of 200 units/bets for each level.In the case of the 60 cent bet level that would be $120, $6 bet level, $1200, etc.

In the case of these short term positive plays you don't pot shot them. The money is thrown back and forth between you and the house. Just a little more gets thrown your way than to the house. Although you will average about a 15% earn on the total action through dozens of plays, with the starting strategy I use, every play is not going to be a winner. You don't want to get in the habit of getting up without completing the play if you experience some negative variance and get in for more money than you figure to win when you get the columns lit up wild. That's a bad move. You want to complete the play no matter what happens. In the long run it's the cheapest way out. You destroy the edge if you are in the habit of getting up before you complete the play just because you got stuck for more than you wanted to. So you need enough bankroll to cover your ass when a play goes tits up.

[LarryS]

Putin is after what Russia has wanted for centuries: recognition as a world power, respect, a warm water port, and political / trading allies.

Interesting to see how Russia has risen from the ashes of the failed USSR.

The welfare folks in this country are generrally obese. They arent skin and bones like the poor people in europe. They often have TVs, and phones, and rooms of furniture.

Now in this world where there is alot of stuff to own,...yes there is a bigger divided between those that have and those that have not.

Because in the 60s there were no computers, and smart phones, and cable, and dsigner jeans,/sneakers, video games,. It was a simpler life and the haves and have not had similar things....but the richer had better quality....homes, food, tvs, furnitire. The poor people in Russia were closer to our poor people.

But now, I think our poor people kick the ass of the russian poor.(not talking about homeless who refuse to use the system and resources)

Our poor can walk into a large fully stocked supermarket and armed with food stamps get good food if they choose. In russia people still stand on line to get toilet paper or fresh produce. They would switch places with our poorin a heatbeat.

Sure there is a bigger discrepancy between rich and poor in the 2000's...but thats because there is so much more stuff available to own than in the 60.But our welfare folks are fed and sheltered and clothed. I dont care if they dont have cable or a flat screen, or a smart phone, or new storebought clothes.