The Reinstate Argentino Thread

[redietz]

I don't recall Rob ever posting an equation about video poker. But are equations necessary, mickeycrimm?

Rob did a good job showing the math of his special plays on my website. I'd bet a Nehi and a Coney that mickeycrimm never looked at those pages.

And what's so difficult to believe that Rob follows conventional strategy 95%+ of the time, mickeycrimm? And why wouldn't he?

Sling unfortunately Rob is his own worst enemy. He could present a very clear report on his strategy but his critics wouldn't read it. And why wouldn't they read it? Because Rob wrote it.

This illustrates two problems:
1. Rob has alienated too many people.
2. And his critics have their minds made up.

Frankly I don't know which -- 1 or 2 -- is worse.

Mr. Mendelson told a funny. How can someone who says his system(s) has no fail point(s) be taken seriously? Think about that. When asked at what percentage return his systems fail, Argentino has no answers. That's blunderbuss funny.

Every other video poker writer says either at 100% or at X% plus some comp/cashback addition. Argentino, however, has no answers.

Perhaps Argentino whispered in Mr. Mendelson's ear regarding fail points. In 5000 posts at this site, however, Argentino doesn't go there.

You know why? That would be math.

So, Mr. Mendelson, maybe you know. Do Argentino's systems fail to win at 97% return machines? Or 96.8%? Or 89%? Or 61.5%? I mean, c'mon, this is just farcical. It's idiotic. If he has a system, Argentino has to know.

Let's see Mr. Mendelson's answer to this one. And I'm going easy on this topic because I'm arguing for Argentino's reinstatement, mainly because he's such a sexy dude (he implied I was gay or something on GF), and he'll be a constant albatross around Mr. Mendelson's neck. I love albatrosses.

I have a tough time keeping a straight face with a system that doesn't fail. And the intrepid reporter, who has interviewed presidents, has no issue with that. Of course the intrepid reporter has never had a winning year gambling, all the while championing someone whose system doesn't fail. Now there is an absurdity for the ages. Figure that one out.

I guess either the intrepid reporter doesn't really believe in the system without fail points, which would make the intrepid reporter a hypocrite. Distinctly possible. Or the intrepid reporter is too arrogant to follow someone else's systems. Possible. Or the intrepid reporter just likes to lose. Also possible.

I have a tough time wrapping my head around someone who loses continually, is friends with someone whose systems don't fail, but refuses to employ those systems. Very tough to get one's head around that.


Note: I would not read Argentino's systems because I am not qualified to evaluate them. I would hand them off to people who either have doctorates in math or who teach university probability courses. Then I would listen to what they have to say.