question for math guys

[arcimede$]

More amazement. I am not trying to change anything. I'm just pointing out what you said, and fortunately for everyone else, they can go back and read exactly what you posted. You misquoted Wynn. And I transcribed exactly what was said on 60 Minutes.

Nonsense. I stated no one won, period. Wynn stated there were "never" any winners. Both of those statements mean exactly the same thing. I can only marvel at your silly claims.

Now, your new diversion: "As I said before, if Alan is quoting Wynn because he believes he is right, then Alan is calling Singer a liar."

I was quoting what Wynn said, and what Wynn said has more to do with your claims as an AP than Singer's claims.

More nonsense. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with APers since Wynn has no advantage games. However, they do have loads of negative games.

But you will take any opportunity you can to attack Singer, won't you Arc?

I simply was pointing out that if Wynn's statement had any relevance it was to Singer's play. And, that is clear to anyone not fully embracing their own cognitive dissonance.

Stick to the issues, and the issue is that Steve Wynn says there are no long term winners except if they get lucky:

Q: The only way to win in a casino?
A: Is to own won, unless you're very lucky.

Gee, Rob Singer's entire strategy is about maximizing the chance to get lucky.

Once again Wynn only has negative games. I am amazed that you can't understand the difference. I guess I thought you were a lot smarter.