Flipovers aren't the only myth

[New2vp]

I have no doubt at all that this fake 3 dollar bill pianoboy is rs and the penning is being done by rs.

I know rs and NO ONE uses terms exactly like that and becomes obnoxious and writes using the same name calling terms which are his trademark.

Pianoboy is rs or is his whore. Which is it?Darn, I've got to learn to "cut to the chase" more often!  Where did you learn this art of being so subtle?

[rolanddude]

  Actually, the most logical explanation is he didn’t figure anyone would actually be able to check his figures and, like r-dude and seagreen, he would just say that the results happened even if they were unlikely.  Here, however, the probability of a $7000 average is zero.  Can’t happen!

"The probability of a $7,000 average is zero. Cant Happen!"


 
Your Wrrrong!!
 
You wanted someone to challenge you.  I proved you wrong.  My example is of a "losing session".  It doesn't happen often but when it does it is NOWHERE in your ballpark of $14k+.  Your claims are false and your understanding of the system is flawed.  I PROVED  it in my example.
 
Your misunderstanding, New2vp, is when pocketed wins are never to be risked again.  It is only in the $1 level that the wins go into the "lock box".  Any amounts pocketed at the other levels that do not recoup enough to start over at $1 would be in what you have termed "temp".  These smaller wins are a counter-weight against total loss.  It takes a disciplined player to not risk those credits when on a losing trend. 
 
As for advancing to higher levels when your losses are not in proportion to the progression, (i.e. going to $5 when your true loss is only $400 +/-...As you have now conceded possible although you claim it would be illogical to do...not impossible!) it is much easier to recoup your progression losses by increasing your bet at designated stops.  Remember the strategy as laid out is only going for a 14.53488372% gain on the starting bankroll of $17,200.  A goal that is much easier than you are asserting.  Everyone can equate that to stopping when you are ahead $15 when you start with $100.  Happens all the time (reaching that amount that is...few here have the discipline to stop).
 
Hate to make someone that is so educated eat his own words...but, you were the one that said it "Can't Happen" !!! 
 
 

[oej719]

Yep that is the old rs I know. He can't control his mouth and his ego is bigger than J lo butt.
I declare myself the winner here and now and rs the loser. By the way anyone notice seaweeds absence?

Cast a yes vote for oej
cast a no vote for rs aka pianoboy.

[cddenver]

I have no doubt at all that this fake 3 dollar bill pianoboy is rs and the penning is being done by rs.

I know rs and NO ONE uses terms exactly like that and becomes obnoxious and writes using the same name calling terms which are his trademark.

 
Oej, maybe he was just trying to do his best imititation of RS's style.  He did pretty good.    Written all in bold, and dashed off as if he's done it a million times, including RS's trademark "if only"'s to support a specific example.  I don't think rd's mentioned using this particular strategy before, but I'm sure he'll write now that he's an expert.   

[rolanddude]

I have no doubt at all that this fake 3 dollar bill pianoboy is rs and the penning is being done by rs.

I know rs and NO ONE uses terms exactly like that and becomes obnoxious and writes using the same name calling terms which are his trademark.

Pianoboy is rs or is his whore. Which is it?

Your a degenerate OEJ.   I'll be in southern Nevada in a couple of months...want to meet me?  I want to see the look on your face when your entire reason for living is proven to be bull crap.  You will of course never take me up on the invitation because it will destroy your entire conspiratorial world as it revolves around VP.  (or by the way you act this is your entire world!!  Scary!!!)
 
By the way, I've met others in "real life" that become obnoxious and use the same terms you use....hmmmm.  It must have been you incognito!  You dumbass!!!

[New2vp]

[QUOTE=New2vp]  Actually, the most logical explanation is he didn’t figure anyone would actually be able to check his figures and, like r-dude and seagreen, he would just say that the results happened even if they were unlikely.  Here, however, the probability of a $7000 average is zero.  Can’t happen! "The probability of a $7,000 average is zero. Cant Happen!"


 
Your Wrrrong!![/QUOTE]I hope you don't mind that I reduced the font size in quoting you.  That size was not germane to your argument, was it?Of course you're following precedent (of silly man, seagreen, you, et al.) by totally ignoring the response to your first post.See if you can understand.  It can't happen if one follows the entire strategy; I guess you missed that point.  Further, by continuing to say the same thing that you did in your first post, you are admitting that (1) the strategy is not designed to maximize the chances of attaining a win goal and is thus just another run-of-the-mill progression system, and (2) the session will sometimes end in wins less than the win goal, which is different than what the strategy says.  This calls into question the other claimed figure of 93%.Here is one important quote from the strategy:"I will continue this process...until either all the 40+ pocketed wins add up
to my profit goal of $2500 minimum, I attain or surpass my goal with one
big hit or several smaller ones, or I lose my bankroll."If you follow your interpretation, as I pointed out and you ignored, you can lose your bankroll while achieving a win of less than $2500; in my example it was $1000, but it could be any number less than $2500.  Does anyone believe that is what was meant as a win?  Is a $5 win while risking $17200 counted as meeting the goal?It is hard for me to believe that too many people would interpret the colorful strategy above as being able to end with a win of less than $2500.Or is that the way the $7000 loss figure was calculated.  Were some of the losses averaged with the small wins to reduce the average loss size?  Sorry for the brief digression.And as I pointed out, you can move to the $5 machines, with your interpretation when you are only down $410, not to mention moving to the $10 machines when you are only down $435, the $25 machines when you are only down $485, and the $100 machines when your are only down $610. If it is optimal at a loss of $410 to move to $5 machines, then why not move directly to $5 the first time that you are down $410 until waiting for the movement of money from bankroll to your temp pocket?  Your best chance of winning your minimum goal of $2500 when your are down $410 is not different depending on how you got there.The other important quote:   "I play until 40+ credits are won,
and always cash out as usual, but if and when I accumulate a minimum profit
of 240 credits, I pocket 40+ credits and use the remaining 200 credits
to cover my $400 in losses on the dollar machines."OK, so cash out here is a different action than pocketing since the pocket only occurs after a series of cash outs or a cash out that is big enough.  Otherwise, there would be no reason once you cash out that first 40 credits for you to move it to the pocket when you win more.  It would already have been in the pocket.  Unless, you (I mean he) are simply moving the money around in your pocket.  Careful if you do that do much; security might be concerned as to what you're doing in there.R-dude, it would save a lot of time, if you are simply going to repeat your response to my first detailed post, without considering what I wrote in the 2nd detailed post, that you just refer back to that 2nd post.I don't think you were able to answer the question at the end of the 2nd post; specifically, "OK, which is it?  Do you use the logical method that increases your
chances of attaining your win goal and admit that the $7000 average was
made up?  Or do you take your interpretation that reduces your chances
of walking out with a minimum win?"You of course wanted to go with your interpretation that it was possible to get a loss near $7000, but weren't quite able realize and admit that such an interpretation had the ramifications of rendering the entire strategy inconsistent, contradictory, and overly tedious, while guaranteeing its lack of optimality.  Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Refer to the second post.  You can also see that I was correct in my prediction about your response:  "Based on experience, you'll ignore this logic, go off on some other
tangent, answer it with 'Wha?' because you're unable to follow the flow
of the argument, or go back to insisting that you yourself are not
silly man when that's not really the point of the discussion.  Oh,
that's right...you have another option.  Go back to insulting oej719
and complain that he's insulting your hero and it's not fair."I've highlighted the alternative that was correct with large print because I thought you might be able to more fully enjoy points in that style.  Isn't it fun when your predictions prove out to be true?<<EDIT:  I see that I should have also given myself credit for predicting more insults and possibly implied threats to oej; this occurred during the composition of the post.>>It doesn't change the conclusion, even if you repeat your post a couple hundred more times.Remember, if you simply feel the need to repeat your 1st post once again, you and everyone else reading this should simply refer to my 2nd detailed post.  That's really not a difficult algorithm, is it?  

[New2vp]

Your misunderstanding, New2vp, is when pocketed wins are never to be risked again.  It is only in the $1 level that the wins go into the "lock box".  Any amounts pocketed at the other levels that do not recoup enough to start over at $1 would be in what you have termed "temp".  These smaller wins are a counter-weight against total loss.  It takes a disciplined player to not risk those credits when on a losing trend."It takes a disciplined player to not risk those credits when on a losing trend."?  Again, here your interpretation is sort of silly.  With your interpretation you choose not to risk the credits at a lower level (say $2), but instead move up to a higher level (say $5) prematurely!?!  There might be an adjective to describe this type of behavior, but it is not "disciplined." 

[New2vp]

My example is of a "losing session".  It doesn't happen often but when it does it is NOWHERE in your ballpark of $14k+.  Your claims are false and your understanding of the system is flawed.  I PROVED  it in my example.When losses occur, they are nowhere near $14k+?  You've already forgotten our earlier go round when you challenged someone to simulate your strategy back in February, which presumably you thought was better than your hero's since you claimed to have used it.  You'll remember; this is when you posted an impossible to achieve result and later, after I called you on it, you explained it by saying that you didn't follow the system that you were trying to test?  Does that interpretation sound familiar and does the indiscretion on the promoter of the system sound parallel to what we're discussing here?The results were:Parameters: Bankroll $1000; Win Goal of $100; 7/5 BP, 8/5 TBP; steps of
$0.1,$0.25,$0.5,$1.My first simulation of 208 sessions produced: Summary numbers are 146 wins and 62 losses.Most dollars won $1236.  Most dollars lost $999.25.  Average win size: $396.10.  Average loss size:  $977.23.44 of the sessions (71% of the losses) ended with losses of more than $970, fairly close to the average bankroll.That's towards the upper end of the bankroll.  Surprisingly few of your practice sessions had this type of result.Of course, your hero's system is different, but the similarity in a progression system is that many losses occur near the top end of the bankroll.  The higher the bankroll, the higher the average loss.You seemed to delight in shadowman's disagreement with me about the system in which you proclaimed his viewpoint to be superior to mine.  Do you recall what he thought the average loss was with his simulations of your hero's system.  A lot closer to $14k+ than $7k.Sorry, this represents another misstep on your part.  Should we then follow your logic and discount everything else you say, provable or not?

[rolanddude]

   You of course wanted to go with your interpretation that it was possible to get a loss near $7000, but weren't quite able realize and admit that such an interpretation had the ramifications of rendering the entire strategy inconsistent, contradictory, and overly tedious, while guaranteeing its lack of optimality.  

 
There are so many things here to refute and challenge.  First of all, my example is not "my interpretation" of this strategy but a simulated "application" of the rules set forth plainly in the strategy.  It is not "tedious".  You are trying to make it look that way because you have been cornered on this subject and you want people to see your long posts (talk about tedious) and give up trying to follow.
 
My example to you is absolutely acheivable.  It follows the rules of the strategy immaculately.  You are not able to refute it; I don't care how many twists, turns, and hoops you try to jump through.
 
Contradictory, Inconsistent, Tedious, and my favorite from you...It's lack of optimality...
 
Here are more accurate adjectives...
 
Simple, Smart, Consistent, Profitable, Rewarding, Goal-Oriented, Perfect for any size starting bankroll, Fun...etc.
 
If youunderstand the strategy as written (not what you think is implied) you will see the err of your analysis.

[rolanddude]

 
When losses occur, they are nowhere near $14k+?  You've already forgotten our earlier go round when you challenged someone to simulate your strategy back in February, which presumably you thought was better than your hero's since you claimed to have used it.  You'll remember; this is when you posted an impossible to achieve result and later, after I called you on it, you explained it by saying that you didn't follow the system that you were trying to test?  Does that interpretation sound familiar and does the indiscretion on the promoter of the system sound parallel to what we're discussing here?

The results were:

Parameters: Bankroll $1000; Win Goal of... Again, you are now employing the debating technique of someone who is defeated..."Change the Subject and ramble on and on about nothing to do with the original subject.
 
You claimed that it couldn't be done.  You claimed that the loss ALWAYS had to be more than $14k.  Not me!!
 
You WILL NOT admit that your unsolicited attack on this strategy is baseless.  Your figures are wrong and Sir, You are wrong.  I question your motives.
 
Maybe it's because of your pissy little feud with RS.
 
This is certainly no way to gain credibility against what he says.  It makes you look even more foolish.