Originally Posted by
slingshot
Originally Posted by
redietz
The problem with Rob's old Gaming Today columns was that, after about a dozen columns, he simply repeated himself. Nothing wrong with that, but after 10,000 posts and a decade's worth of columns, one would suspect he would get around to some mention of his statistics somewhere for some period of time. But no.
The thing about Argentino -- as with most things, you can usually learn more from what isn't written than what is. Argentino just ignores math altogether.
It's all about luck. That pretty much washes the gambler's hands of the results. Which implies the results weren't pretty.
You're always full of half truths. All the figures he gave on some of his holds and relationship of math to win goals- or did you just ignore them?
Yeah, okay, sling. Go find one post in the 5000 here where he stated his numbers of hands per royal or number of hands per four-of-a-kind. He claimed to somehow circumnavigate probability, but never actually gave hard numbers. For him to win, he would have had to magically generate more royals or four of a kinds than probability predicts.
Rob always skirted math, which was a smart move on his part.
Reply With Quote