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

[oej719]

Anyone here want to go to vegas to debate the bozo rs? Wtf is that about? He will buy you dinner at mickey d's.
He will let you play with his card while he shows you how to lose very fast. As fast as a bass hits the worm on a spring morning. Please people stay away from this clown. He will stalk you and lie about you till the devil snatches him from this earth.

Maybe pianoboy will show him some love.

[cddenver]

Anyone here want to go to vegas to debate the bozo rs?
 
Methinks someone just got the same e-letter I did. 
 
RS didn't give any specifics about a possible debate.   I assume it would be something with a small audience and the winner of the debate would be determined by acclaim. ()  There's no question at all that the claims RS would make to an audience would be more to their liking than the typical boring, run of the mill info posted here by site members.  He'd be saying things people wish were true; we can't compete against that.  So such a "debate" would be pointless - truth, logic, and common sense wouldn't enter into it, the winner would be determined by who the best storyteller is.   Need I mention a name?  
 
 

[oej719]

Would he debate sober or in a stooper state as when he met webman. That was one scary photo.

[cddenver]

Would he debate sober or in a stooper state as when he met webman. That was one scary photo.


 
Hmm.  It would help the cause if he came to any debate inebriated.  Vomiting during the debate or soiling himself would also help.  Maybe we could schedule it after Happy Hour, luring him to the bar beforehand for some two-fers. 
 
In the same e-letter he does raise the possibility that he has been wrong about flipping.  How someone could claim to have a large sample of hands with a "flip" rate of over 40% on the one hand and then say that he may be wrong on the other hand is beyond me.   More dancing to come on that issue.
 
Congratulations to you, oej, and the other members who got prominent mentions again in the e-letter.  More notches to put on your player's cards. 

[oej719]

It is sooooo easy to get into that weak mind of his, he must dream about how I slap his vp-isms to the ground and expose his fraud time and time again.
Might I be the cause of his heavy indulgence of the liquid courage? Not the cause I say, but just another good reason. I guess if I had to live his life I would drink hard also.

[New2vp]

[QUOTE=oej719]Anyone here want to go to vegas to debate the bozo rs?
 So such a "debate" would be pointless - truth, logic, and common sense wouldn't enter into it, the winner would be determined by who the best storyteller is.   Need I mention a name?  

 [/QUOTE]Truth and logic are not absent from the best story-teller on this site!  I think Eduardo could win this debate without even being there in person...just by sending a couple pictures!

[cddenver]

Truth and logic are not absent from the best story-teller on this site!  I think Eduardo could win this debate without even being there in person...just by sending a couple pictures!

 
I did not think of that!    Our side of the debate could be to simply put Eduardo's posts from that thread into some sort of PowerPoint presentation and let 'er rip.  We wouldn't even need to show up, just mail it in.  What defense could RS bring up against that kind of firepower?

[New2vp]

What is there to debate?  And how would we determine who wins?  Are we going to do this in front of an audience of people who don't know how to capitalize words or put spaces after commas and let them decide?There hasn't been a new idea advanced along these lines in years.  Just an appeal to what novices think they see the first couple times they play video poker:  Keep risking more money until you win a little; that must be a guaranteed way not to lose, right?  Cards of the same rank seem to appear too frequently when you are trying to fill a straight or full house; it's not just my selective memory, right?  Play on the hopes that you are going to hit a royal or quads every hand and forget trying for flushes, full houses or smaller hits.  Don't worry that you'll go broke playing in this manner.  Ignore math and statistics because I really didn't do that well in those subjects, so it must be a certain way to lose more to the casinos.  Instead believe the claim that if you play less than optimally, you will win most all the time and win more; that will really scare the casinos!!  Why would this work?  Because RS doesn't sell his strategies and he brutally insults anyone who suggests that they may be lacking.  I guess he knows what such strategies are worth...or is afraid of lawsuits from those looking for a quick way to riches; you know, from those who would be silly enough to pay for such convoluted and ineffective methodologies to extract dollars from a third party without much work.  As to the insults, I guess he sees that as an effective way of diverting attention from the fallacies of his other assertions...or maybe he has just a bit of trouble controlling his emotions.These ideas have been neutered by truth, facts, logic, math, and statistics so many times in this forum alone that it is hard to keep count.  But, just when you know that no rational person would believe the claims or when someone posts something that is too damaging to the theories...poof, up comes another personality doing just that.  Amazing!  Just look at what has happened in this thread!  Someone or something new, so that the discussion must be explained anew!A debate as if this is a new topic that hasn't been discussed, dissected, scrutinized, and examined in every possible way ad nauseum?  The only originality on these topics in the last couple years is the number of different ways that such schemes have been shot down.Why don't we just travel hundreds of miles to meet to try to re-invent the wheel and try to determine whether it would be better if we made wheels square rather than round?  After all, those geometry geeks just can't know what they're talking about!  Since most of us didn't like it or don't remember it, common sense tells us that we don't really need geometry or round wheels, right?The square wheel discussion would be about as productive as more arguments about these silly video poker contentions....but that's just my opinion.  What's yours?

[seagreen33]

Since the author of the original "5th card challenge" clearly, and unequivocally stated in the original challenge that any and all results would be "inconclusive", then, if I still understand the English language, that has to mean that irrespective of any outcome, neither party could claim a win or loss, no matter the outcome.

So, at that point the "challenge" would have NO meaning.

Therefore, the challenge was meaningless on it's merit, but must have served a different purpose as constructed by it's author, who provides a biased platform to discuss this matter.

So why do some people feel anyone won or lost the challenge, when by definition in the challenge's rules, no one could win or lose?

See paragraph 3.

[New2vp]

When one does an experiment of this nature, the numbers do the talking.  The results, with a little help from those who understand statistics, speak for themselves.  That is, if you haven't already made up your mind one way or another.Prior to the test, one could tell that this sample size was large enough to be able to determine if the flipover rate was anywhere near the claimed 40% rate.  No spinning after the fact will change that the results say that that claim was unfounded.You're right that no one has to pay off a bet based on the agreement, but the credibility of those claiming 40%+ is totally lost.  If you are actually interested there is plenty of science to read in this and the previous posts to help you through the bluster of either side.