Page 99 of 501 FirstFirst ... 49899596979899100101102103109149199 ... LastLast
Results 1,961 to 1,980 of 10013

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #1961
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    So the success lies in the fact that if you keep playing the same game with a +EV, then the sum of the other sessions played will more than offset the 8K loss giving the player a profit over time
    You are playing the same game with a +EV whether you have won the previous session or not, correct?

    Say the $8K loss was the first session in a series of sessions, do you have a better chance of winning in subsequent sessions because you lost previously?

  2. #1962
    That was a great explanation tableplay.

  3. #1963
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    So the success lies in the fact that if you keep playing the same game with a +EV, then the sum of the other sessions played will more than offset the 8K loss giving the player a profit over time
    You are playing the same game with a +EV whether you have won the previous session or not, correct?
    Yes

    Say the $8K loss was the first session in a series of sessions, do you have a better chance of winning in subsequent sessions because you lost previously?
    No - so if you had a 51.5% chance of winning in session 1, you would have a 51.5% chance of winning in session 2 and so on, Ad Infinitum (the chance of winning is the same from session to session). Because you have an edge, the sum of the winning sessions will be greater than the sum of the losing sessions if you play thousands of sessions

  4. #1964
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    That was a great explanation tableplay.
    Thanks Danny.

  5. #1965
    But it doesn't explain how, with all those easy/hard ways to beat the casinos, there is little to no visible impact on the casinos, and no one ever hears of or sees these very strange characters who make $500 guaranteed a day in real life. The ones who write the books are weirdly numbery, but the ones who claim to actually do it are almost always very strange persons. Like Monet's claim that he lies about what he does, to dinner guests, and family. Voluntary outcasts.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  6. #1966
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    But it doesn't explain how, with all those easy/hard ways to beat the casinos, there is little to no visible impact on the casinos, and no one ever hears of or sees these very strange characters who make $500 guaranteed a day in real life. The ones who write the books are weirdly numbery, but the ones who claim to actually do it are almost always very strange persons. Like Monet's claim that he lies about what he does, to dinner guests, and family. Voluntary outcasts.
    This is simply because the the vast majority of players don't apply these techniques. So in aggregate the casinos make a lot of money since only a very small number of people apply these techniques. In any case, your beliefs for or against these techniques are not a requirement for them to work. All that is required is for the game to have a positive expectation, the player to bet a sufficiently small amount on each +EV trial so as to defeat variance, and the opportunity to play the +EV game multiple times (to also aid in defeating variance).

  7. #1967
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    But it doesn't explain how, with all those easy/hard ways to beat the casinos, there is little to no visible impact on the casinos, and no one ever hears of or sees these very strange characters who make $500 guaranteed a day in real life. The ones who write the books are weirdly numbery, but the ones who claim to actually do it are almost always very strange persons. Like Monet's claim that he lies about what he does, to dinner guests, and family. Voluntary outcasts.

    I think the primary explanations for what you've observed are pretty simple. Most people who have solved one game rarely possess the ability to fend off the overall addiction of the other various forms of gambling. So the savants who have conquered one gambling venue seek action gambling at other, negative EV games. That ruins most of the best and brightest. The people who actually win do so because they are somehow immune to the addictive nature of the gambling experience. That by definition suggests that they are outside the behavioral range of the "normal" folks who become addicted. One would naturally expect these immunes to be somehow different in fundamental ways or to not abide by the mores (consumerism, for example) of the culture at large.

    "Voluntary outcasts" shouldn't have a pejorative tone, given this.

  8. #1968
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    So the success lies in the fact that if you keep playing the same game with a +EV, then the sum of the other sessions played will more than offset the 8K loss giving the player a profit over time
    You are playing the same game with a +EV whether you have won the previous session or not, correct?
    Yes

    It's still unclear to me why a long losing session would be considered more successful than a short winning session.

    If the expectation for the session is to win, then by what criteria could a loss be considered successful?

    Say the $8K loss was the first session in a series of sessions, do you have a better chance of winning in subsequent sessions because you lost previously?
    No - so if you had a 51.5% chance of winning in session 1, you would have a 51.5% chance of winning in session 2 and so on, Ad Infinitum (the chance of winning is the same from session to session). Because you have an edge, the sum of the winning sessions will be greater than the sum of the losing sessions if you play thousands of sessions

    If the expectation over mX hands is to win Y units, and after X hands you have lost Z units,
    then would the expectation over the next (m-1)X hands be to win Y + Z units?

  9. #1969
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    And therein lies the AP hypocrisy. They ALL want everyone within reading distance to believe they win because they outsmart the casinos with their +EV theoretically created plays.

    You've seen that idiot kew claim how EV trumps actual results because, well, he Loses! And yes, dummies like him want everyone to think that they'll "win it all back and more" because of a few theoretical percentage points. But they never will come out and actually say that, simply because they know they'll sound like they're "due" or they "feel a hot streak is coming". They prepare and craft their words more carefully than how Martha Stewart's lovers are directed on when to put on their condoms.
    The vast majority of games found in a casino have an edge for the casino. When a player comes out ahead in a session playing one (or more) of these games, you assume that it is an anomaly, and that in the long run the casino will come out head in the long run. Yet when KewlJ applies the same concept as the casino - playing a game where he has an edge (card counting at Blackjack), but happens to have a session where he comes out behind, you don't apply the same logic to him as you do the casino and its house edge games. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
    You're misguided by what kew is claiming....that's why my statements make no sense to you.

    First of all, ALL games have an edge for the casinos or else they wouldn't have them. Just because a machine or game theoretically calculates out to 102% into infinity, that certainly doesn't mean it's "game over" for the casino or that game/machine. In fact, if any machine loses money in any 6-month period it gets removed immediately.

    As for kew and his claims vs. any casino's claims....I've never said it's an anomaly if a player wins playing anything. People get lucky--that's what gambling's all about. He isn't the casino but he can have winning as well as losing days--just like anybody else. Where he's always trapped himself is in how he claims to play the game he says he beats.

    We'll toss aside his nonsensical claim of counting two tables simultaneously for the sake of this discussion. He only said that idiocy so he could bolster his earned phantom bucks for the day. However, always lost in the sights is how counting cards these days for the profits he claims to make as an anonymous poster, is 100% impossible these days with all the safeguards in place, with facial recognition shared among casinos, and how closely the pits and upstairs watch these guys. Sure some still try to count, but they don't keep doing it because they aren't allowed to.

    That's why anonymous poster like kew shows up on forums as neurotic as he always is, trying to get as many others as possible to believe their stories in order for him to feel relevant. And when he gets challenged over his claims? He squeals like a little bitch, claiming "waaa....waaa....Alan, Rob & Coach and all Singer's sockpuppets are vile, miserable stupidos" and his most famous sissified whine "What?...are you REALLY asking for proof!!??---that's not what forums are for---when people like Singer claim something it's OK to demand proof, but when AP's claim things everybody and their mother HAS to believe them and they should never ask for supporting evidence"!

    Kew is easy pickins' because he's so dumb and wimpy in his demeanor. He's also the most prolific liar here, and of course he knows it.
    Have you ever seen anyone better at psychobabble than Rob?
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  10. #1970
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    You are playing the same game with a +EV whether you have won the previous session or not, correct?
    Yes

    It's still unclear to me why a long losing session would be considered more successful than a short winning session.

    If the expectation for the session is to win, then by what criteria could a loss be considered successful?

    Say the $8K loss was the first session in a series of sessions, do you have a better chance of winning in subsequent sessions because you lost previously?
    No - so if you had a 51.5% chance of winning in session 1, you would have a 51.5% chance of winning in session 2 and so on, Ad Infinitum (the chance of winning is the same from session to session). Because you have an edge, the sum of the winning sessions will be greater than the sum of the losing sessions if you play thousands of sessions

    If the expectation over mX hands is to win Y units, and after X hands you have lost Z units,
    then would the expectation over the next (m-1)X hands be to win Y + Z units?
    No. The expectation would be to win Y(m-1)/m units.

  11. #1971
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    If you "work" ANY promotion, all you've done is show weakness by being fool enuf to allow yourself to get roped into a casino. They make money on every promotion or else they wouldn't have them. But AP's like to build up their perceptions, which is what you do constantly and is really the only thing you have in life.
    Rob, if you can get a casino to give me a 125 coin bonus on every quad at 9/6 Jacks through 20,000 hands, and I lose money on the play, I'll pay you $5000. I can do the 20K hands in two days. Or I'll just straight up pay you $1000 to get me the play. Has to be dollar denom or higher.
    Put the drinks down mickey. First, you don't have the dinero. Next, I don't run a casino. And finally, all you need do is make up that you ran into such a promotion at some obscure Indian casino, you know, just like how the anonymous kew makes up all his gambling prowess nonsense.
    I'll put the money in escrow with the casino. C'mon, Rob. This is your big chance to prove promotions don't work for AP's. What's the matter, to chickenshit? Yeah, that's it. I smell chickenshit.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  12. #1972
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Ok Singer or whatever you want to call yourself for the purpose of misleading and deceiving other, the gloves are now off.

    I learned quite a bit about this 'person' several months ago when I was looking. Just a simple Google search...nothing fancy. I have refrained from sharing said info because frankly I am against that kind of thing. But there comes a time when low life pieces of shit forfeit that protection. (Think strictlyap). Singer and his blatant lies to discredit many people, including but not just myself, now has forfeited that right of privacy. So when I get home in a couple hours I will spill the beans on this deceitful low life clown.
    That should be good...what time do we get the popcorn ready?

  13. #1973
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Ok Singer or whatever you want to call yourself for the purpose of misleading and deceiving other, the gloves are now off.

    I learned quite a bit about this 'person' several months ago when I was looking. Just a simple Google search...nothing fancy. I have refrained from sharing said info because frankly I am against that kind of thing. But there comes a time when low life pieces of shit forfeit that protection. (Think strictlyap). Singer and his blatant lies to discredit many people, including but not just myself, now has forfeited that right of privacy. So when I get home in a couple hours I will spill the beans on this deceitful low life clown.
    Name:  grab-some-popcorn-shits-about-to-go-down-meme.jpg
Views: 585
Size:  104.0 KB

  14. #1974
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The expectation would be to win Y(m-1)/m units.
    Y(m-1)/m < Y

    So if a loss occurs after X hands, then you would need to win at a rate greater than expectation
    over the next (m-1)X hands to achieve results that are equal to expectation after mX hands...is that correct?

    And if the expectation after X hands is positive, then why is a loss after X hands viewed as successful?

    Is it because the math forecasts that you will win in the future, at a rate above expectation?

  15. #1975
    First, great explanations and posts, tableplay. Unfortunately they will and are falling on deaf ears. There is an old proverb that says "there are none so blind as those who will not see". We are dealing with a whole crew of doubters and hater's who simply refuse to see.

    Next, I want to address Singer's accusation that my household has lost income in the form of lost welfare and food stamp benefits due to the death of my spouse. Of course no one in my household is or was on any kind of government assistance. In my lifetime, I received food stamps once, for a 3 month period in 2001, when I was 18, for a period of 3 months while I was homeless and still in High school. I didn't even apply. It was arranged by the social worker at the men's shelter. Because I left the shelter very early each morning catching 2 public transit buses to get to high school, I left before breakfast was served. After school I went directly to a part-time job, which meant I did not return to the shelter until 10pm or so, well after any evening meal. Those food stamps enabled me to get something to eat between school and my job. At the end of those 3 months, I graduated high school, moved to a different state, got a job and have never been on any kind of public assistance since. That is my total knowledge concerning public assistance. I am not embarrassed about those 3 months while I finished high school. My situation was the exact purpose of public assistance.

    Now Rob Singer, or whatever name or sockpuppet this person is using at any given time, has made several comments about me and other members of this site being on welfare and public assistance. Each time those comments have fallen flat. I suspect no one on this site even knows anything about welfare or public assistance. As near as I can tell, the site is a handful of AP's, all who have some level of success and have no need for any kind of public assistance and the remaining members all have or had some kind of career, some pretty successful from what I can tell. So Singer's comments about welfare resonate with no one, and never get any kind of response, good, bad or ugly. No one knows anything about the subject or cares.

    But it should make you wonder why this person, Singer, a titan of the business world, top level vice president making mega bucks, retiring early, and then following up with a million dollars in negative EV video poker wins, has any knowledge of welfare and or food stamps? Made me wonder....so I looked it up among other things. If you look up Singer's real name, there is a wealth of public information. Some already discussed, various judgements, evictions, restraining orders against, so on and so forth. Singer has an explanation for all. These guys always do. It's never them in the wrong, Never their fault. Always the other guy and always a bad rap.

    So one of the items that is public information is that this Singer person, had been receiving welfare and snap benefits, which I guess is the new name of food stamps, in recent years. Big surprise there. Please note the past tense (had). Reason being, this person, same age and addresses, is now ineligible to receive benefits because he fraudulently accepted benefits he was not entitled to. I mean really....is anybody surprised at this. Oh, and you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.

    Forget the scam that has been perpetrated for I don't know how long, 10-15 years? Here are the facts:

    I take it at his word (why since everything else he has said is a lie), that this person was a successful businessman, vice president of whatever company and retired early. From that point on his entire story is fabricated.

    No million dollar winnings at negative EV video poker. No magical progression system. Progression systems can not turn a negative EV game into a positive EV game and NO ONE can win a million dollars playing negative EV video poker.

    A million dollars or $900,000 or whatever he claims in handpay wins, is not winning if it costs you 1.5 or 2 million to get that $900,000. Just ridiculous.

    So the real story is this guys retires early with whatever nest egg he has and proceeds to blow some portion of that retirement as a degenerate gambler playing losing video poker. Progressions of all things. LOL! I hope he didn't lose it all....I really do. But whether he lost it all or half or whatever significant portion, the end result is he lives in a RV in someone else's driveway mooching electricity and internet service. And according to public record, fraudulently receiving welfare and snap (food stamp) benefits.

    So yeah, he is a little bitter. And lashes out at any of us disciplined enough to apply mathematically sound techniques and actually win a little money from the casinos.

    He is a fraud, a liar and a dirt bag. In short he is a degenerative gambler. It almost seems unfair that one person is cursed with both extreme stupidity and ugliness. Maybe if I was dealt those cards (stupidity AND ugliness), I would be bitter too.

    But really this charade has gone on long enough. Ask yourself this one question. If this person's story was anywhere close to true....why all the sock puppets? Because this Singer person is the King of sockpuppets on every site he is on! Answer: he need them to vouch for him....an attempt to bolster credibility. Sockpuppets! Come on...that should have been red flag #1. And again don't take my word for this... talk to the various site owners/administrators. Wizard identified and banned singer sock puppets in recent months. Dan Druff did likewise here. No doubt the same at the video poker site.

    For those that have been supporting and enabling this fraud....just stop. It's well past time to move toward reality.

    To Dan Druff: what gives Dan? 4-5 months ago, you publicly posted that you wanted the site to head in a more positive, legitimate direction. You banned Singer and that lead to many new members. Knowledgeable gambling people, some AP's some recreational, but almost all wanted to contribute positively. Then you reverse course and re-instate Singer, I guess at Alan's begging, and we are right back to square one. And some of the legit members, Axel, Monet, RS, Maxpen, Boz and I am sure a few others have left or rarely post now. The site is nothing but a troll site, because you allowed the world's biggest troll and a fraud with an agenda to mislead people back. Good job Dan.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-15-2018 at 06:57 PM.

  16. #1976
    Wow. Well, it would explain the odd fixation. I never understood why government aid was such a big bugaboo with him. This would make sense. This would also put Mr. Mendelson's credibility in a different light. The whole presentation has been a fiction.

    LOL -- perhaps coach will revisit his logic of thinking posting jackpot photos means something.

  17. #1977
    Was there really ever any doubt?

    Name:  51HhiH-fyZL._SX355_.jpg
Views: 529
Size:  29.3 KB

  18. #1978
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    First, great explanations and posts, tableplay. Unfortunately they will and are falling on deaf ears. There is an old proverb that says "there are none so blind as those who will not see". We are dealing with a whole crew of doubters and hater's who simply refuse to see.

    Next, I want to address Singer's accusation that my household has lost income in the form of lost welfare and food stamp benefits due to the death of my spouse. Of course no one in my household is or was on any kind of government assistance. In my lifetime, I received food stamps once, for a 3 month period in 2001, when I was 18, for a period of 3 months while I was homeless and still in High school. I didn't even apply. It was arranged by the social worker at the men's shelter. Because I left the shelter very early each morning catching 2 public transit buses to get to high school, I left before breakfast was served. After school I went directly to a part-time job, which meant I did not return to the shelter until 10pm or so, well after any evening meal. Those food stamps enabled me to get something to eat between school and my job. At the end of those 3 months, I graduated high school, moved to a different state, got a job and have never been on any kind of public assistance since. That is my total knowledge concerning public assistance. I am not embarrassed about those 3 months while I finished high school. My situation was the exact purpose of public assistance.

    Now Rob Singer, or whatever name or sockpuppet this person is using at any given time, has made several comments about me and other members of this site being on welfare and public assistance. Each time those comments have fallen flat. I suspect no one on this site even knows anything about welfare or public assistance. As near as I can tell, the site is a handful of AP's, all who have some level of success and have no need for any kind of public assistance and the remaining members all have or had some kind of career, some pretty successful from what I can tell. So Singer's comments about welfare resonate with no one, and never get any kind of response, good, bad or ugly. No one knows anything about the subject or cares.

    But it should make you wonder why this person, Singer, a titan of the business world, top level vice president making mega bucks, retiring early, and then following up with a million dollars in negative EV video poker wins, has any knowledge of welfare and or food stamps? Made me wonder....so I looked it up among other things. If you look up Singer's real name, there is a wealth of public information. Some already discussed, various judgements, evictions, restraining orders against, so on and so forth. Singer has an explanation for all. These guys always do. It's never them in the wrong, Never their fault. Always the other guy and always a bad rap.

    So one of the items that is public information is that this Singer person, had been receiving welfare and snap benefits, which I guess is the new name of food stamps, in recent years. Big surprise there. Please note the past tense (had). Reason being, this person, same age and addresses, is now ineligible to receive benefits because he fraudulently accepted benefits he was not entitled to. I mean really....is anybody surprised at this. Oh, and you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.

    Forget the scam that has been perpetrated for I don't know how long, 10-15 years? Here are the facts:

    I take it at his word (why since everything else he has said is a lie), that this person was a successful businessman, vice president of whatever company and retired early. From that point on his entire story is fabricated.

    No million dollar winnings at negative EV video poker. No magical progression system. Progression systems can not turn a negative EV game into a positive EV game and NO ONE can win a million dollars playing negative EV video poker.

    A million dollars or $900,000 or whatever he claims in handpay wins, is not winning if it costs you 1.5 or 2 million to get that $900,000. Just ridiculous.

    So the real story is this guys retires early with whatever nest egg he has and proceeds to blow some portion of that retirement as a degenerate gambler playing losing video poker. Progressions of all things. LOL! I hope he didn't lose it all....I really do. But whether he lost it all or half or whatever significant portion, the end result is he lives in a RV in someone else's driveway mooching electricity and internet service. And according to public record, fraudulently receiving welfare and snap (food stamp) benefits.

    So yeah, he is a little bitter. And lashes out at any of us disciplined enough to apply mathematically sound techniques and actually win a little money from the casinos.

    He is a fraud, a liar and a dirt bag. In short he is a degenerative gambler. It almost seems unfair that one person is cursed with both extreme stupidity and ugliness. Maybe if I was dealt those cards (stupidity AND ugliness), I would be bitter too.

    But really this charade has gone on long enough. Ask yourself this one question. If this person's story was anywhere close to true....why all the sock puppets? Because this Singer person is the King of sockpuppets on every site he is on! Answer: he need them to vouch for him....an attempt to bolster credibility. Sockpuppets! Come on...that should have been red flag #1. And again don't take my word for this... talk to the various site owners/administrators. Wizard identified and banned singer sock puppets in recent months. Dan Druff did likewise here. No doubt the same at the video poker site.

    For those that have been supporting and enabling this fraud....just stop. It's well past time to move toward reality.

    To Dan Druff: what gives Dan? 4-5 months ago, you publicly posted that you wanted the site to head in a more positive, legitimate direction. You banned Singer and that lead to many new members. Knowledgeable gambling people, some AP's some recreational, but almost all wanted to contribute positively. Then you reverse course and re-instate Singer, I guess at Alan's begging, and we are right back to square one. And some of the legit members, Axel, Monet, RS, Maxpen, Boz and I am sure a few others have left or rarely post now. The site is nothing but a troll site, because you allowed the world's biggest troll and a fraud with an agenda to mislead people back. Good job Dan.




    Is anyone really surprised at this? Singer’s bullshit is so obvious it makes you wonder why anyone would believe it.

  19. #1979
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    This would also put Mr. Mendelson's credibility in a different light.
    What credibility?

    Poor Rob (pun intended), now he’s gonna write 10 pages of his normal bullshit trying to rebuke the truth here. Alan will probably make some threat about calling the FBI because someone said something negative about his boyfriend Rob Stringer, then he’ll cower away for a few weeks then randomly come back and pretend like he’s hot shit.

  20. #1980
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The expectation would be to win Y(m-1)/m units.
    Y(m-1)/m < Y

    So if a loss occurs after X hands, then you would need to win at a rate greater than expectation
    over the next (m-1)X hands to achieve results that are equal to expectation after mX hands...is that correct?

    And if the expectation after X hands is positive, then why is a loss after X hands viewed as successful?

    Is it because the math forecasts that you will win in the future, at a rate above expectation?
    The expectation is constant and exerts itself after M grows sufficiently large. That is, when M is sufficiently large the actual results will converge to expectation. If the expectation is positive then profit will occur if M is big. M for the casino is extremely large and that is why a profit occurs for the casino. It is up to the player to bet sufficiently small and to play at a positive expectation in order to get in enough plays to make M sufficiently large to converge to positive expectation (i.e. to act as a mini-casino). A single loss is not viewed as successful or not successful (in reply to your 2nd question) - success (or failure) is an adjective that is attached to a series of plays in aggregate where the series is very, very large and the expectation is positive for the player. The answer to your first question is Yes - but M must be very large. How large is a function of the variance of the game and the magnitude of the positive expectation.
    With regard to question #3, success is applied to the sum of all plays of a positive expectation game, not to an arbitrary dividing line of the first X plays and the ensuing X+1 plays up to when the player plays his or her last hand. The game must converge to its expectation for a large M. So play games with a positive expectation and play sufficiently small to make M large and profit (success) will be achieved. This is what KewlJ meant - if you and/or others wish to focus on the semantics of Kewlj's delivery of this important message, then you will miss this important point. My goal here was to say what I said in red and bold above, so I will not comment further on this topic - that is, I am satisfied with what I have stated there whether others here are or aren't and so will not comment further on it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 82 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 82 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •