Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[New2vp]

And to think that in the past you've claimed not to be good with numbers.  We may have a closet mathematical genius here in the forum!  But you didn't mention the sample size...so how do we know we can believe your numbers with conclusivity?

[oej719]

To Rs and all the shills. You are all pathetic, addicted,jealous lurkers. All are vile and jealousof others success and hate it when others can have fun from there success. I have been getting alot of email and Pm's from members sharing the responses that rs and his whores have been sending them. I have asked each of them to either post them here on the forum so all can see the scum rs and these shills are or to send them to webman so action to the full extent of the law can be taken.
rs if you see this take this olive branch and



A WORLD OF MORE THAN JUST VIDEO POKER

[damule]

I'm tired of it and here it is. This is the last email RS sent me almost immediately after my report on Fort McDowell yesterday. I've tried to be somewhat non-confrontational with him and everytime I post something that states I play more than he does or I don't believe in his thoeries I get an email like this:
 
 

Kinda cowardly of you to be saying those things about me instead of TO me, don'tcha think. I can see the courage winning a few hundred bucks bestows on such a ferocious expert. And all 7-Stars means is you're both a serious addict as well as a positive play hypocrite. Plus, by dragging your wife along with you to trashy Indian casinos, that says a lot about what kind of respect you have and what great lives you both lead. Blabbing about millions of dollars gambled? You know as well as I do the level of white trash that fills those places. While you're wasting your lives away in such pathetic places we go to Hawaii & drive around the country each year - this time in a ZR-1 that you might have been able to afford had you won the $192,000 I did in CY '08 instead of pouring it all away into Harrah's.
 
No wonder the entire group was afraid to debate me.
 
 
RS, I am announcing in this forum (as we all know you read it several times per day), that I am for now on ignoring your emails and will no longer go to bat for you in any way; whether it's money management, taking advantage of earned comps, or whatever. You're delusional and your theories are absurd. You're trying to "keep up with the Jones" and you're losing everytime. I play more than you, win more than you, get better comps than you, have owned over a dozen Corvettes, and I own a Marriott timeshare in Hawaii. You remind me of the idiotic character on Saturday Night Live that always has to one up everybody. Nobody likes you, and you have to beg shills to troll your messages in forums. Have you been reading Lazyace's entries in the "My History of Video Poker?" He even thinks you're pathetic and he only read and used your articles to pass time while taking a crap. Marc Fa La La La La.... La la la la, LOL. Also, I'm originally from Long Island, a life-long Yankee fan. What happened last night, the Yankees swept your Red Sox, boo-hoo-hoo.You lose again!
 
 
 

[cddenver]

No wonder the entire group was afraid to debate me.

 
RS, I am announcing in this forum (as we all know you read it several times per day), that I am for now on ignoring your emails and will no longer go to bat for you in any way; whether it's money management, taking advantage of earned comps, or whatever.
 
Nice post, Mule.    Thanks for passing on RS's mail to you.  As you can see, there isn't any point in showing some agreement with any of his more conventional views; that's not enough.  Anyone not accepting the whole package is OUT!  The various reflections that wander in from time to time are always careful to not show any disagreement with him on any important issue, so they're A-OK with him. 
 
As to his statement about a debate, fear doesn't enter into it.  He and his reflections haven't won a single one here, so I'm curious as to what point there would be doing in it all over again in front of an audience.  His idea of a debate is probably to see who could spin the best yarn to impress an audience.  Telling people things they like to hear is a proven winner, but truth wouldn't enter into it, and I have no doubt that he'd win an exercise in storytelling hands down.
 
If he knows anyone who's interested in being in the audience for a debate he can send them here, and we'll be happy to direct them to any of umpteen threads where they can get his views on any issue relating to VP and ours as well.  They'll certainly get more complete information from both sides by going through these threads than they would in a debate, anyway. 

[New2vp]

Webman, this is a bit unconventional, but it appears our thread here has been misrepresented elsewhere and I think it's important for others to see the other side; a.ka., sanity, rationality, and veracity.How many times have I said in the past that if your entire world is comprised of playing video poker, thinking about video poker, reading about video poker, and writing in forums about video poker, you really have a failure of a life. Does anyone but me see the irony in this "author's" statement?  Who does this description best fit?  Someone who lost enough over 7+ years that it caused him financial ruin...and then decided to write a column about his vp exploits and ideas for 9 more years?  Do psychologists call this "projection"?
First, New2vp seems to thrive on wordy posts that serve as feel-good
numbers crunching as well as his not-so-successful analysis of what I
say in my columns & newsletters. So let's start off by breaking
down his masterful ramblings. I only included this paragraph to ask a question about his first sentence, "Does he have an editor?"  Oh, that's right, he lost him.  Well, he might consider a bit of proofreading at least, so people can follow what he's trying to say.  "posts that serve as...numbers crunching as well as...analysis"  The reader really has to work to make sense of these attempts at journalism.Yeah, I'm wordy.  But again is this the pot calling the kettle black?  How many columns does it take for him to say that everyone who plays video poker (except him) is suffering from some mental illness; no math-based method can be successful against the casinos, but his can be; anyone that understands math is necessarily a geek (except him, who pretends to understand more math than 99% of the population); that deals are random but draws aren't.  He's had fewer than a dozen ideas to write about over these nine years with most of them being bad ideas, yet he writes almost a column a week even though he has nothing of any substance to add.I read Dancer's weekly column for news and information.  I read fa la la's much like viewing the Comedy Channel, for entertainment; although, sadly, most of what I laugh at is probably not intended to be funny.  I'm not laughing with him...

Recently he claimed, via some sort of geeky spin, that I said I was
going to test 45,000 hands on the 5th card flip-over, but then he
thought he was slick in catching me lying about it all because I only
tested 40,000. Now the facts. Here’s the exact wording in my May 14th
e-newsletter as read by thousands: "I've spent a lot of very boring
time playing and recording machine stats through 40,000 hands on this
subject over the past few months and my trial was going to go another
5000 hands, but I've decided to forego that part." So let me see...the
I've always known that the definition of always doing what one says
they’re going to do includes alerting those involved when there’s a
change coming.

As he often does, fa la la (or his reflections) grasps at some minor point when he's uncomfortable in dealing with the major flaws and untruths in what he has claimed.  Although I stand by what I said, the major point here is that he misused his alleged flip-over statistics from the study that he claimed to do whether it was 30,000, 40,000, 45,000 or even the verified study of 180.  By using the term, "geeky spin," just who's trying to spin?  Maybe by "geeky spin," he meant that I took what he had to say and was able to divide 30,000 by 2/3 to get 45,000.  Here in purple was my observation:  "In his April 7 column, he states 'I’ve played and documented the
testing results from 30,000 hands' ... Here
he did NOT say how many opportunities or flipovers he had AND he
proclaimed that he was 2/3 done with his experiment, so we could
reasonably presume that he figured he needed 45,000 hands to complete
for his own reasons.  We know that it takes far fewer hands to support
a conclusion of nonrandomness...if one actually did the study.Well,
we should have expected 45,000 hands since Fa La La La La.... La la la la always, always does
what he says...because....uh, because....well, because he says so."As to his reference to his May 14 newsletter, indicating that I missed something in my analysis, fa la la makes a mistake made by many malignant narcissists; he presumes that everyone is interested in everything about them.  It will probably shock him to know that I have never subscribed to his newsletters "read by thousands" as he says but also, as I would say, ignored by millions.But I was most amused by his "definition of always doing what one says
they’re going to do."  He has always known that said definition includes "alerting those involved when there’s a
change coming."  If he always did what he said he was going to do, why would he have to let people know when he was not going to do what he said he was going to do?  He's got me there.  I admit to thinking that this statement was claiming basically that he always did what he said he would.  I guess "always telling the truth" means doing that unless one decides to tell a lie.  I have to study the dictionary more.Note:  As I was writing this, I see that fa la la has been busy editing away at his column.  What I've reported here is the copy that I started with.  Who knows what his columns will contain later?  It is instructive in dealing with him that you retain copies of what he said since he may wish to bolster his viewpoints simply by changing what he wrote.Ooops again nerd! Geez you’re not doing too well now
that you’re not lecturing and lying to your video poker fairies, are
you. NOTE: I have, since returning from vacation, decided to do at
least 20,000 more test hands and will continually report on how that
evolves.


He lashes out with name-calling when his point is lost.  Where exactly did I lie?  No where.  There's no intentional mistruths, just interpretations of what the evidence indicates.  I'm also not sure who or what "video poker fairies" are, so I can't comment on that.  I at least get why he used the term "nerd," since he believes that anyone who understands more about mathematics and probability than him must necessarily be a social misfit (perhaps this is an autobiographical comment -- more projection), but I can't figure out why he thinks that the rest of you readers and posters are fairies.By the way, excuse me if I remain uninterested in where he is going with the "further" testing of 20,000 hands...unless Webman is there to audit the results.  Fa la la's credibility is negative on this point.  He would do well to remember the old adage, when you have put yourself in a deep hole, the first rule is:  STOP DIGGING!!Lastly, and this is as silly as it gets when math geeks are reaching for straws, he believes he “got me” when I mentioned my flip-over rate was 40% after 40,000 hands instead of the previously mentioned 50% after 30,000 hands. There’s no typo—the correct number is 47.2%. I used 40% because I’M NOT AN ANAL GEEK, AND IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHEN IT’S SO FAR OFF THE EXPECTED NORM OF 6%. Ha! You can always tell people who spend their entire lives hidden behind their computers being critics of anyone who doesn't think or believe as they do. That's why I saw the entire world by the time I was 30, I saw it again between 30 & 40, then I saw it a dozen more time between 40 & 50....while he sat by himself and sought refuge by finding tiny faults in other people's beliefs.



I indicated the chronology in his April 7, May 5, and June 16 columns where he retreated from nearly EIGHT TIMES to SEVEN TIMES (42.7%) to the latest SIX TIMES the random probability that he used until I recently called him out on it.  I also included a statement from an August newsletter that was forwarded to me by another forum member.  On April 7, he said nearly eight times, which is  51.04%; here he said 50% after 30,000 hands; 50% was not previously mentioned in his columns.  Here he says there is no typo after 40,000 hands, but until he edits his May 5 column, this is more evidence that the number stated there must be a typo since it says 42.7% instead of 47.2% when he proclaimed the study to be at an end.He started writing 40% after my criticism when I used 40% to show that is was not reasonably possible for his alleged experiment numbers to have occurred by chance, not before.  If he had done his own study, why would he start quoting a number by one of his critics rather than the actual number that would provide more evidence for his argument.  As I stated, even when the discrepancy was brought to his attention, he put himself deeper by saying that "The 40% figure is from actually testing at the machines and writing down the data."  Of course, it couldn't be from the data, if it was in fact 47.2%.  Maybe "much more than 40%" or "rounds to 50%" might be acceptable as originating from "writing down the data," but 40% is not credible here.  And 47.2% is 7.4 times the random probability, not to be confused with the SIX TIMES that he was writing recently.  Now, he says he wrote the wrong number down because he isn't an anal geek before straying from the argument and bragging that his life experiences are superior to mine when I haven't offered up anything for him to compare.  Well, I won't offer an opinion on whether he is or is not an anal geek at this time, but I stand by my conclusion that the 40,000-hand study was never done, with nearly 100% certainty.Once more, please get the cloth out soon to wipe that embarrassing egg
on your face, New2vp! You might be something special to the 5 or 6
goobers over there, but in front of the whole vp world right now, you
just ain’t lookin’ too good.




I remain proud of what I've written.  Just so I know, are goobers the same thing as video poker fairies?  And I'd be happy for the "whole vp world" to read both what he wrote and I wrote and render a decision.  I presume the "whole vp world" contains the non-fairies and the non-goobers, do you suppose?By the way, I see he is happy with mentions of his name at vp.com; I've seen him take credit for being the object of threads saying that they are in his honor.  Don't you think that sometime he will figure out the difference between "honor" and "ridicule"?I'm not happy with his misuse of my screen name in his column, since he doesn't seem to know how to handle truth, but I'm not concerned either so long as I have this opportunity for rebuttal here.I knew when I posted that the reflections or fa la la would need to spin something.  Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, fa la la can't handle the truth; and, since he can't, I guess we can't expect much truth from him either.

[EDC1977]

  No comment necessary!

[cddenver]

  No comment necessary!


 
I'll echo the kudo (), and I will reiterate a few points that I think are the most important.
 
Well, first, the amount of attention and vitriol that's come out of him on the subject of the test with WM belies his professed unconcern with that particular test compared to his own testing.  He's currently in a testing frenzy and reporting a much wider variation in "flips".  He's mentioned that perhaps new machines are different.  Since casinos are always getting new machines of one kind or another, why weren't these included as well as part of his 40,000 hand sample?  Pretty poor testing process, if you ask me - maybe he should dump everything he has and start over with a more representative sample of machines. (collective groan).
 
Next, the continuation of the "experiment" at this point is approaching lunacy.  Any fellow conspiracy theorists who believed his numbers at 20,000...30,000...40,000 hands are going to continue believing any unusual "flip" rate as the number of hands grows.  Those who never believed them aren't going to take seriously any ususual "flip" rate no matter how many hands are piled onto the existing base.  That pretty much covers anyone who has any opinion at all on the subject.  Unless he feels there's some silent majority who to date have not formed a definite opinion on the subject?  I think not.  So what's the point of continuing?
 
As has been pointed out, RS shows a remarkable lack of concern for what his "flip" rate actually is - even using ours in some cases - when, supposedly, it was specific numbers that led him to his view in the first place.  If he had his own numbers, he'd use them and not ours.

[seagreen33]

New2vp, where can I read the original articles you are referencing when you say "Originally posted by fa la la"?
I'd like to read more than just excerpts. I'm guessing that it is probably against the forum's rules to answer that, however.
 
With complete respect, I can't draw any conclusions without being able to see the full context of what is being challenged.
 
I did enjoy reading your post, as always. 
 

[New2vp]

New2vp, where can I read the original articles you are referencing when you say "Originally posted by fa la la"?
I'd like to read more than just excerpts. I'm guessing that it is probably against the forum's rules to answer that, however.You're kidding, right?  Oh, that's right; you're pretending to be oblivious again.  This act may be believable to some extremely small percentage (perhaps another reflection is poised to come to your side), but...remember the post that you made when you got called out for being a bit too fa la la-like?  I'll help you by putting it below.Somewhere I ran across his name, maybe the 7 and a half years he wrote a column.............I don't know, 
 
Personally, I, too, played losing AP for wayyyyyyyyyyy too long.
 
And I started to look beyond that paradigm. Everybody else was
saying the same thing while being employed by the major casinos, and he
was saying something different.
 
It just made sense to pay attention, if I wanted to achieve different results.My answer to you then was:  And in this last post, you change your profile from an innocent
bystander to a fa la la supporter (you might have confused this with a jock strap), using several of the mundane manifesto
statements that are recognizable as fa la la dogma, consistent with
previous reflections.A lesson for future reflections.  Post
very little and let the next argument be handled by another
reflection.  The more you post, the more likely it is for you to blow
your own cover.New2vp, where can I read the original articles you
are referencing when you say "Originally posted by fa la la"?
I'd like to read more than just excerpts. I'm guessing that it is probably against the forum's rules to answer that, however.My answer to you now is, "I think you know where to go to read what I referenced."With complete respect, I can't draw any conclusions without being able to see the full context of what is being challenged.With complete respect, based on your previous uses of the word "I n c o n c l u s i v e", you likely wouldn't be able to draw conclusions about whether or not gravity works 40,000 feet through a 40,180 foot fall from an airplane onto a pile of jagged rocks.  (Note the subliminal reference to 40,000 deals; the next 180 shouldn't differ much in experience from the previous 40,000, yet all those theories were about to go "splat" as the realm of the last 180 was entered.)  With that level of waiting before you draw a conclusion, you may not realize that you should have pulled the ripcord a few thousand feet ago.However, if you survive the fall with 0.00 ... 001% probability, with that feigned naivete, you may be just the type of person that fa la la needs to view his debates and render "unbiased" judgments; although I confess, I don't know whether your hero would consider whether a reflection is a video poker fairy, a goober, or the rest of the vp world.  He's a little vague on definitions as he hurls insults rather than rationale.I did enjoy reading your post, as always.So does your hero, but he's a bit confused as he thinks such posts are tributes rather than trips to the woodshed.  They say that children acting out do so to get attention from their parents, even if it is negative attention.  I never understood that entirely, but he apparently is living proof of such rationale for juvenile delinquency.

[shadowman]

I had to laugh out loud at the email from RS to damule. It looked almost identical to emails he has sent me in the past as well as numerous posts in other forums. They are simply more projections on his part. That is why it's so easy to laugh at him. All he responds with is projections of his hideous life. Sad, but funny.