Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
rolanddude,
thanks for being a concise voice for "reason and moderation" in this thread.
you oldtimers in the Valley will recognize the reference.
Flipovers aren't the only myth
-
seagreen33
- Forum Rookie
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:43 am
-
New2vp
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:02 am
[QUOTE=New2vp] 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? Remember, he's quoted as attaining the win goal 93% of the time. There are your answers New2vp. I can now say that I have answered all your questions in your second detailed post albeit flawed from the start.[/QUOTE]Hey r-dude, thanks for your attempt at answering the questions but you missed the point with the one at the end, which was the only question that I was referring to. To help you out, I have edited out everything above but the key questions. I was referring to the bolded question above when I have continued to say: "Again you missed the explanation in the 2nd post and the question at the end. Refer to the 2nd post and answer the question."It's really fairly rhetorical, but I was hoping you could focus on it for just a second. Since you insist on an interpretation which allows a $7000 loss even though that isn't typical and is contradictory of the main objective of the short term strategy, i.e. winning a minimum of $2500, you necessarily include the following with your interpretation of the strategy:(1) a lower chance of attaining the minimum win of $2500(2) the possibility of quitting while still having the bankroll and a win somewhere from $5 to $2495 (less than $2500), which is clearly not called for in the strategy, and is in fact contradictory towards it.The other key quote in my post being what follows. Clearly someone bringing $17,200 to a casino with a minimum win goal of $2500 would not go home with a gain of $1000, which is less than the minimum win goal. Remember, he likes to say that most of the wins are bigger
than the losses. I presume you are in agreement with that if you truly understand the ramifications of your interpretation, but you never really have gotten around to addressing that point directly.Instead you say, "New, you are asking everyone to choose between things that don't exist as you state them." But I gave you a clear example of ending with a gain less than the minimum win goal and you seem to dismiss that as unimportant.Do you believe what I am saying here is untrue? If you think that attaining the minimum win goal is unimportant, why have the strategy in the first place?Sidenote: It is no big deal, but after reading seagreen's announcement that you are "a concise voice for 'reason and moderation' in this thread," I can see he may have a bit of trouble with the definitions of terms. Maybe this was why he was unable to conclude anything in that other thread. But I am glad to see you have an ally in this thread; I wouldn't want you to feel so threatened because you have no outside support. I don't think it changes the facts, but if it makes you feel better, that is great.Thanks again for answering the questions to the best of your ability and I hope you feel better now.
-
cddenver
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:54 pm
rolanddude,
thanks for being a concise voice for "reason and moderation" in this thread.
you oldtimers in the Valley will recognize the reference.
Hi seaweed still waiting on you to post a photo of life partner like pianoboy jc carter did. Oh by the way I am not oej. webman can vouch for it.
I never use fake id's . Vroom vroom .
The spook.
thanks for being a concise voice for "reason and moderation" in this thread.
you oldtimers in the Valley will recognize the reference.
Hi seaweed still waiting on you to post a photo of life partner like pianoboy jc carter did. Oh by the way I am not oej. webman can vouch for it.
I never use fake id's . Vroom vroom .
The spook.
-
cddenver
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:54 pm
Hi Bozo pianoboy
Its me aka Oej signed in under another members id. Just to show you that you and rs are full of horse poop.
rs must have many ways of explaning his strategy to suit the situation because he always told me soft profits at each level were never risked again. Example : at $1 you have $40 soft profit but go in to lose the 400 credits.
You then go to $2. At $2 you have $80 soft profit but go on to lose your 400 credits.
You then go to $5. At $5 you have $200 soft profit but go on to lose your 400 credits. etc etc.
You made it a very clear point those will never be at risk. That $320 is put in another pocket to take home.
You said each level stands on there on. We wnet over that many times.
Maybe you were to wasted to remember.
Maybe you don't remember telling me finally it was a scam. You were just trying to make a living the only way you knew how.
p.s. tell scorpio, alr, seaweed, harpo and all the others I am their Daddy.
Its me aka Oej signed in under another members id. Just to show you that you and rs are full of horse poop.
rs must have many ways of explaning his strategy to suit the situation because he always told me soft profits at each level were never risked again. Example : at $1 you have $40 soft profit but go in to lose the 400 credits.
You then go to $2. At $2 you have $80 soft profit but go on to lose your 400 credits.
You then go to $5. At $5 you have $200 soft profit but go on to lose your 400 credits. etc etc.
You made it a very clear point those will never be at risk. That $320 is put in another pocket to take home.
You said each level stands on there on. We wnet over that many times.
Maybe you were to wasted to remember.
Maybe you don't remember telling me finally it was a scam. You were just trying to make a living the only way you knew how.
p.s. tell scorpio, alr, seaweed, harpo and all the others I am their Daddy.
-
rolanddude
- Senior Member
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:01 pm
Are you guys going to hijack this thread too?
CD, OEJ and all others...
I am now forced to show everyone that your "proclaimed" meeting and conversations with RS might have to be questioned...
His strategy says plainly in Rule #3 that the 40+ credits that are to never to be risked again are the surplus that occurs when you recoup and go back to the $1 level...
Rule #3: I am prepared to first play 100 credits on BP, then 300 credits DB, DDB, or TBP. Playing progressives of any amount are fine, and recommended if available. They are completely acceptable in this strategy. Play on a multi-game machine, or change machines at any time. The new multi-game/multi-denominational coin-less machines are tailor-made for this type of play. I always cash out the first time I am at least 40 credits ahead on BP. I pocket it, then begin again. If the initial 100 credits are lost on BP, regardless of how many 40+ profits were cashed out and pocketed, I begin play on advanced bonus machines (DB/DDB/TBP), playing up to 300 credits. Again, I cash out anytime 40+ credits are realized, and begin again until at least 140 credits are accumulated, with a minimum of 40 to be pocketed and never risked, and 100 to make up for the initial 100 credits lost on BP. Having recovered my loss, I begin again on BP.
He would have never taught anyone to play the way you claim that he told you. Unless it is evident that you are as big a prick in real life as you are on here. Then even I would have told you wrong. The strategy is laid out and defined in simple English terms on his sight. It is very easy to understand and duplicate while playing (at least for me it is and I've only had "some college")
You guys should be craving them apples in the bucket I refer to instead of chicken. God knows that you all need to learn the lesson described in my story.
CD, OEJ and all others...
I am now forced to show everyone that your "proclaimed" meeting and conversations with RS might have to be questioned...
His strategy says plainly in Rule #3 that the 40+ credits that are to never to be risked again are the surplus that occurs when you recoup and go back to the $1 level...
Rule #3: I am prepared to first play 100 credits on BP, then 300 credits DB, DDB, or TBP. Playing progressives of any amount are fine, and recommended if available. They are completely acceptable in this strategy. Play on a multi-game machine, or change machines at any time. The new multi-game/multi-denominational coin-less machines are tailor-made for this type of play. I always cash out the first time I am at least 40 credits ahead on BP. I pocket it, then begin again. If the initial 100 credits are lost on BP, regardless of how many 40+ profits were cashed out and pocketed, I begin play on advanced bonus machines (DB/DDB/TBP), playing up to 300 credits. Again, I cash out anytime 40+ credits are realized, and begin again until at least 140 credits are accumulated, with a minimum of 40 to be pocketed and never risked, and 100 to make up for the initial 100 credits lost on BP. Having recovered my loss, I begin again on BP.
He would have never taught anyone to play the way you claim that he told you. Unless it is evident that you are as big a prick in real life as you are on here. Then even I would have told you wrong. The strategy is laid out and defined in simple English terms on his sight. It is very easy to understand and duplicate while playing (at least for me it is and I've only had "some college")
You guys should be craving them apples in the bucket I refer to instead of chicken. God knows that you all need to learn the lesson described in my story.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
We all know that Joe Carter's initials are not RS. However, having corresponded with RS over many years there is absolutely no doubt that RS penned the first response under the name rollanddude.
It's OK Joe. You can admit that you simply copy/pasted RS's words into the post.
Now for the real deal. The entire reason for new2vp's misunderstanding is simple. The entire system is a scam. This is why he has the silly 40 credit sub-goal to begin with. This is why there are over 1700 special plays. The entire premise of this system is to get someone to sit down and use RS's player's card while putting through their own money. If the system was simple then no one would need to be personally educated.
Not only that. When a player tries the system for awhile and starts losing, it's easy to claim that they must not be following the rules properly and they need more personal training. Or, to claim the person lost because they did everything wrong.
Now that seagreen has weighed in you can add her to list of phony aliases. No one would support such an obvious con except the originator.
End of story.
Here's an explanation of the 40 credit subgoal in RSs own words:
"The subgoal is 40 credits minimum. It is always pocketed, never
played, and never becomes anything other than soft profit unless it
can contribute to other wins resulting in the attainment of the
overall trip goal ($2500 minimum)."
Seems pretty obvious that these funds are never used again. However, here's more:
"Once it is pocketed, if all pocketed wins within that denomination recovers all previous credits lost within that denomination PLUS recovers the value of all 400 credits lost in the previous denomination PLUS at least a 40 credit profit within the current denomination, play is resumed at the lower denomination on BP. "
Now does this make any sense? First it can't be reused and now it can be reused. It appears even the purveyor of the con has trouble describing his own system. Any reasonable person would be convinced that it walks like a con, it quacks like a con and we all know how that goes.
It's OK Joe. You can admit that you simply copy/pasted RS's words into the post.
Now for the real deal. The entire reason for new2vp's misunderstanding is simple. The entire system is a scam. This is why he has the silly 40 credit sub-goal to begin with. This is why there are over 1700 special plays. The entire premise of this system is to get someone to sit down and use RS's player's card while putting through their own money. If the system was simple then no one would need to be personally educated.
Not only that. When a player tries the system for awhile and starts losing, it's easy to claim that they must not be following the rules properly and they need more personal training. Or, to claim the person lost because they did everything wrong.
Now that seagreen has weighed in you can add her to list of phony aliases. No one would support such an obvious con except the originator.
End of story.
Here's an explanation of the 40 credit subgoal in RSs own words:
"The subgoal is 40 credits minimum. It is always pocketed, never
played, and never becomes anything other than soft profit unless it
can contribute to other wins resulting in the attainment of the
overall trip goal ($2500 minimum)."
Seems pretty obvious that these funds are never used again. However, here's more:
"Once it is pocketed, if all pocketed wins within that denomination recovers all previous credits lost within that denomination PLUS recovers the value of all 400 credits lost in the previous denomination PLUS at least a 40 credit profit within the current denomination, play is resumed at the lower denomination on BP. "
Now does this make any sense? First it can't be reused and now it can be reused. It appears even the purveyor of the con has trouble describing his own system. Any reasonable person would be convinced that it walks like a con, it quacks like a con and we all know how that goes.
-
oej719
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:46 pm
Wrong pianoboy. I questioned you on that and you told me as I said.
Like I said you were probably too wasted to remember.
Could be you were lusting for my body.
Don't call me a liar you &^((*__+(_)(&^%%$%&^* jerk.
I will break your f^(%^&&(&*(%^$%$%#!@() neck.
You rat sh&*^%^%&^*% bit&^(*^*&**%$.
You are a lying piece of dog sh%%.
Like I said you were probably too wasted to remember.
Could be you were lusting for my body.
Don't call me a liar you &^((*__+(_)(&^%%$%&^* jerk.
I will break your f^(%^&&(&*(%^$%$%#!@() neck.
You rat sh&*^%^%&^*% bit&^(*^*&**%$.
You are a lying piece of dog sh%%.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
We also need to qualify his always doing what he says. Here's another quote.
"My progression is $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100. Now again, I don't always
go to the $100 machines when you would expect I would. That's based
on if my current week's loss would put me ahead or behind my minimum
$2500/trip goal for the current calendar year. There's also times I
would stop at a loss before the $25 games, but that is more rare."
He claims to win 93% of the time so you would expect he plays quite often at the $100 level. However, when pressed he admitted he had only played at that level 3 times in his first 250 sessions. So much for always doing what he says.
"My progression is $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100. Now again, I don't always
go to the $100 machines when you would expect I would. That's based
on if my current week's loss would put me ahead or behind my minimum
$2500/trip goal for the current calendar year. There's also times I
would stop at a loss before the $25 games, but that is more rare."
He claims to win 93% of the time so you would expect he plays quite often at the $100 level. However, when pressed he admitted he had only played at that level 3 times in his first 250 sessions. So much for always doing what he says.
-
oej719
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:46 pm
Shadow has nailed it. I caught rs in so many lies. Each time he would add something new. More special plays, this machine is cold, wrong paytable, bla blah blah.
I knew he was a fraud after 10 minutes.
I knew he was a fraud after 10 minutes.
-
rolanddude
- Senior Member
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:01 pm
I presume you are in agreement with that if you truly understand the ramifications of your interpretation, but you never really have gotten around to addressing that point directly.
Instead you say, "New, you are asking everyone to choose between things that don't exist as you state them." But I gave you a clear example of ending with a gain less than the minimum win goal and you seem to dismiss that as unimportant.
Do you believe what I am saying here is untrue? If you think that attaining the minimum win goal is unimportant, why have the strategy in the first place?
New, If I understand you correctly here you are contradicting yourself in these three paragraphs...
If $2,500 is your minimum win goal you can't stop until you attain it!!! Period. That is the strategy. Your of quitting before $2500 is not in the strategy. You play until you reach it or go bust.
You are the one that said that you should stop with something less, not me.
BTW, YOUR POSTS THAT CLAIM YOU CAN'T EVER LOSE $7000 IN A SESSION OR AVERAGE OF THEM IS WRONG! YOU SEEM TO THINK THIS FACT IS UNIMPORTANT!!! IT IS YOUR MYTH THAT IS BUSTED!!! YOUR THE ONE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!!!
Instead you say, "New, you are asking everyone to choose between things that don't exist as you state them." But I gave you a clear example of ending with a gain less than the minimum win goal and you seem to dismiss that as unimportant.
Do you believe what I am saying here is untrue? If you think that attaining the minimum win goal is unimportant, why have the strategy in the first place?
New, If I understand you correctly here you are contradicting yourself in these three paragraphs...
If $2,500 is your minimum win goal you can't stop until you attain it!!! Period. That is the strategy. Your of quitting before $2500 is not in the strategy. You play until you reach it or go bust.
You are the one that said that you should stop with something less, not me.
BTW, YOUR POSTS THAT CLAIM YOU CAN'T EVER LOSE $7000 IN A SESSION OR AVERAGE OF THEM IS WRONG! YOU SEEM TO THINK THIS FACT IS UNIMPORTANT!!! IT IS YOUR MYTH THAT IS BUSTED!!! YOUR THE ONE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!!!
