Video Poker Team Play

[cddenver]

New2VP - played by Edward Norton
 
A good choice for New2VP, just remember not to make him angry.  As a related item I thought that at some point we might make his nickname "N2" since he's the math equivalent of T2 - the Terminator.
 
I like your other suggestions.  For faygo I'd pick Mickey Rourke.

[cddenver]

I will accept Franz as my actor, simply because he was one of the first people to show hit butt on TV.
 
I was going to say that it might be a good idea to skip butt shots to keep the flick rated for family viewing, but if we have the Lovitz character true to life he'll be swearing a mile a minute, and have ex-CIA agent flashbacks.  So go for it.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=Tedlark]
New2VP - played by Edward Norton
 
A good choice for New2VP, just remember not to make him angry.  As a related item I thought that at some point we might make his nickname "N2" since he's the math equivalent of T2 - the Terminator.
 
I like your other suggestions.  For faygo I'd pick Mickey Rourke.[/QUOTE]
 
I was thinking more like John Wayne pardner.

[shadowman]

No one has proved me wrong yet CD... You just keep on talking as if it is all taken care of...

tell me this doesn't do what I claim...prove it... you can't

tell me that 5 play doesn't work....prove it... you can't

tell me that multi-strike strategy doesn't work....prove it ... you cant

You and the others just throw out suggestions and assume them true.  New's excel calculations and sims were good but misleading as they were never compared to someone betting at the top/normal level on the wins or the losses that stayed at the same denom...only to show how many sessions would be lost playing with the goals that were set forth...

Try this.... I dare you... are you afraid?..........



 
You've been proven wrong many times. Why you keep coming back and ignoring those proofs is evidence that you really aren't interested in the truth. All you want to do keep making false claims and hoping someone buys it.
 

[rolanddude]

[QUOTE=rolanddude] You and the others just throw out suggestions and assume them true.    


 
You've been proven wrong many times. Why you keep coming back and ignoring those proofs is evidence that you really aren't interested in the truth. All you want to do keep making false claims and hoping someone buys it.
 [/QUOTE]Shadow, the charts and excel sims, the mathematical jargon that sounds like I'm back in calculus in high school, and all the EV, ER, RNG...etc.  all sound good...but like our weather day before yesterday...according to the percentages and experts we were going to get wet...(100% chance)...never got a drop!!hehe  Nothing is PERFECT...Will you or someone else finally explain WHY that when I play on VPFW ( my only simulator at home)... I play ARTT, except I have only been playing DDB and not switching games and such,  ...  And after I play for however long...I click on "Analyze Session" and "Coins" to see my stats on coins won/loss and it ALWAYS shows something different than my ACTUAL coins...and on EVERY denom I played nonetheless....If it was a losing session...It shows that I lost more coins than I actually did....If it was a winning session...It shows less coins than I actually won...Webman..(or someone)....PLEASE TELL ME WHY....I'm not worried or do I even care about EV, ER, blah, blah, blah....just the bottom line...why is it different?

[rolanddude]

Something is very clear to me here with all the ads for Dancer and his new books and software...I feel like a Republican at the democratic convention.  You all have your examples and logic etc.... that makes you feel that your way is better...But Lord have Mercy on anybody that comes in singing a different tune...no pun intended (honestly).  Just a figure of speech...... That person becomes the whipping boy, or scapegoat, or the focus of everyones ridicule... just to keep the party faithful in check...Weird...

[Eduardo]

Did you honestly just criticize the use of "logic?"

Yes, if you come in with a view that is false, then keep harping about it after it is proven false, then you will be criticized. What do you want, people to bow down before you and say "Okay, this obviously isn't mathematically correct but THANK YOU for bringing to my attention!?"
 


You are not like a Republican at the Democratic convention. You are like a hunter at a wildlife refuge trying to convince people that shooting every single animal will actually result in more nature.
 
You can shoot a few animals to change the balance, but shoot enough and you'll end up exactly where the math tells you. Zero.

[Webman]

Please see my note in the "scoreboard" thread for closure.This was a fun topic at times and the first post illustrated well the expectations of betting at multiple amounts. But all good things must end.