Rng's - Short term trends.

Quote: EvenBob

Statistically, all the numbers show up an equal
number of times eventually. Law of Series (yes,
it's not really a law) holds up in the long run
also. In the short term, it's all over the place.
You get three 14's in a row, number 34 doesn't
show up for 140 spins, you get 18 black
numbers in a row. You'll see this on random
and pRNG results. But if you play long enough,
pRNG seems to behave itself better. Nothing
is predictable or exploitable, just different.

It's all in the nuance. Like a pro golfer can
tell how far the ball went just by the sound
of the club hitting the ball. If they're good,
that is.

I assume you are saying that a RNG smooths itself out better in the short run. IE. no 18 blacks in a row. This would be exploitable, just use martingale in this case.

This is all in your head. People expect the machines are not as random as a live game in the first place, so they look harder, they end up selecting patterns for whatever they suspected in the first place, after the fact. This explains why its not predictable. (because its not happening).

Since your so called "winning roulette system" uses streaks and sleeper numbers (I'm sure you tried it on RNG, and failed) You chose to blame the RNG because of Ego.

The fact is a machine plays so much faster then a live game, you get closer to actual HA much faster causing your winning system failure.

Quote: AxelWolf

I assume you are saying that a RNG smooths itself out better in the short run. .

I'm not saying that at all. It's just different,
it doesn't play the same as true random.
You don't have to have a winning system
to see it, just something you're very familiar
with on true random. That's why the old
roulette players said phooey on the virtual
setups. They had their well worn systems
and they played screwy on the pRNG's.

Like the difference between a wood and
aluminum bat. They weigh the same, measure
the same, but hit the ball differently if you're
a pro.

deleted

Quote: EvenBob

Yet you can say they're the same with zero
proof. You just 'know' they are. Prove it.

No I'm relying on test having been done to establish that these pRNG are sufficiently random. There is a large amount of literature on this subject. Now can I definitively say that you cannot tell the difference no, but I can be reasonably certain that you are blowing smoke. Again if you really can do it just show some proof. I'm sure someone on this board would be willing to stake some money on it to make it worth your while. Do a simple test get 20 pRNG sessions 20 roulette wheel sessions, you can define how many rolls you want, and if you can correctly guess at least 15 out of the 20 test you get paid otherwise you pay the other guy. Those number could of course be negotiated but seems like the basis of a bet. Would be a great idea for you since based on what you have said it should be easy money.

Quote: Twirdman

No I'm relying on test having been done to establish that these pRNG are sufficiently random.

Yeah, on millions of spins they are identical.
There is no test for short term random. The
only test is experience. If you consistently
do something for years on a real wheel,
and can't do it on a virtual wheel, what
should this tell you. That you're wrong,
or that the outcomes from the wheels are
not the same.

Quote: EvenBob

Yeah, on millions of spins they are identical.
There is no test for short term random. The
only test is experience. If you consistently
do something for years on a real wheel,
and can't do it on a virtual wheel, what
should this tell you. That you're wrong,
or that the outcomes from the wheels are
not the same.

It should probably tell you that you are seeing a false pattern since that is something humans are known to do. Gut reactions are not scientific. If you can do what you are claiming to do it should be an exceedingly easy thing to prove. Why are you so dead set against proving it. What kind of money would make you willing to prove it? I mean you are making a rather incredible claim since many things where pseudo random number generators are used are not merely considered with the long term results of their randomness. Cryptography relies on pRNG being perceived as random even in the short term.

Quote: EvenBob

I'm not saying that at all. It's just different,
it doesn't play the same as true random.
You don't have to have a winning system
to see it, just something you're very familiar
with on true random. That's why the old
roulette players said phooey on the virtual
setups. They had their well worn systems
and they played screwy on the pRNG's.

Like the difference between a wood and
aluminum bat. They weigh the same, measure
the same, but hit the ball differently if you're
a pro.

Reminds me of gr8players system. He cant define it he, he cant explain it, cant prove it. He just feels it.

Thanks for using an analogy that has a perfect scientific reasoning behind it VS something that's almost paranormal.

It's simple Show us you can tell the difference, I am willing to make a wager you cant do it. I have a feeling there would be a large betting pool that will make it worth your time. Also get ready for genus status and all the benefits of being THE MAN.

10 short term sessions(what ever number you think is adequate) can be played on a live roulette table(verified by video or someone you trust). Then 10 sessions can be played on a Video roulette. I bet you cant match the live sessions with the Video session.

Of course you will come up with some excuse why you don't want to. That's what all the system bettors and BS'ers do.

Quote: Twirdman

It should probably tell you that you are seeing a false pattern since that is something humans are known to do. Gut reactions are not scientific.

Why do you refuse to understand this. It
has nothing to do with a 'gut reaction'.
You act like this happened once and
I threw up my hands in defeat and
walked away. You have this agenda
in your head and you plug right along
with it no matter what I say. This is
very boring and not new to me and
I am tired now..

Quote: EvenBob

Why do you refuse to understand this. It
has nothing to do with a 'gut reaction'.
You act like this happened once and
I threw up my hands in defeat and
walked away. You have this agenda
in your head and you plug right along
with it no matter what I say. This is
very boring and not new to me and
I am tired now..

Well you are explaining it in a poor way but I'm willing to take you up on it. Axel echoed what I said lets make a wager on it. Slightly different parameters then I said but I'm willing to go for what he said. All you have to do is be willing to prove you can do what you categorically claim you can do. You mentioned the aluminum vs wooden bat and your right there is a big difference between those two and that difference is scientifically explain and is due to a myriad of reasons like center of mass of the bat and type of deformation of the bat. So just explain how you are telling the difference or at least show use you can. I mean why would you expect people to take you at face value since you are making an extraordinary claim.

There is no requirement to prove two distributions are random in the short term. If both meet the definition over the long term, they must therefore be random over the short term. That's part of the very definition of the term random.

Moreover, there are methods to define the likelyhood of a series of events being random for a small sample.

If the distribution of the calculated probabilities over two populations was significantly different, then there would be an observable difference over a larger sample. Random results are non-correlated too any previous result. Bob's claim implies there is a correlation (this behaves themselves line).

As ever, the person making the extraordinary claim does, or those who have experience have no reason to believe it is any more true than people defining that E=mc. There's plenty of those, but they don't past the merest glance of rigour.

Bob won't take any bet. There is zero point trying to define terms for a bet. He has no interest in being proven wrong. I will refer readers to this point in a previous thread :

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/10597-does-counting-work/10/#post164490

Where Bob rejects 0 EV games and random walk analysis. Then claims that people have to prove him wrong, but when they do, says he likes his statements well enough.

Quote: thecesspit

Where Bob rejects 0 EV games and random walk analysis. Then claims that people have to prove him wrong, but when they do, says he likes his statements well enough.

When Bob is proven wrong he disappears. I remember the JJ thread(he made a speech how she would never prove to be a real person) The evidence kept swinging back and forth if she was real or not. Every time it looked as if she was real, he disappeared. Every time there was doubt he would chime in saying I told you so type of remarks.

There are other times where Bob disappears when he is wrong.

EvenBob's roulette system is mystical in that he doesn't explain it to us, which is fine.

Quote: boymimbo

Easily, Ahigh, this is your best post. Ever.

LOL. What? You didn't know the scarecrow had a brain? THANK THE WIZARD!

Quote: boymimbo

EvenBob's roulette system is mystical in that he doesn't explain it to us, which is fine.

More like a blessing.

I think if this discussion is going to be productive, we need to use examples. Folks can learn about pRNG and this could turn into a productive discussion instead of just a back-and-forth push-and-pull.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2dfe3bzd.aspx

RAND_MAX in visual studio (a common programming environment) is 0x7fff.

The most common random number generation function only has 32768 possible results.

Now if you follow advise on getting a wider spectrum of results, the domain can be larger, but you are still limited by the number of seed values.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8120062/generate-random-64-bit-integer

Talks about how to get 64-bit results, and plenty of people writing code that uses this technique think they will get 2 to the power of 64 possible results with this algorithm.

But instead you get 2 to the power of 32 possible results. The reason is that there are at MOST 2 to the power of 32 different seed values. And if the implementation of srand is is also limited to 0x7fff seeds, you will only get 32768 possible results -- just ending up taking up more space in 64-bits but only 32768 possibilities.

There are MANY more advanced forms of random number generation than the built-in rand and srand functions. But just to add some thought to the whole "people design poor random number generation in SOME applications" there is plenty of merit to such a suggestion.

There's a comment in there about this limitation, and I'm sure there are plenty of other online forums where people discuss this sort of thing. So it's not uncommon knowledge.

But here's something that isn't exactly common knowledge. There are some programmers out there who write terrible code and get paid an average programmer salary anyway. Many of these programmers don't know until it's too late the mistakes that they made (or their employers) when their code goes live somewhere and screws something up.

But this isn't a fault of the random number generator.

This is the fault of the person who designed the application. And it does happen. If you want to know why it doesn't happen that often in Las Vegas, you can credit the very stringent process for producing a game that meets the standards of Nevada.

As a general rule, the whole "this random number generator sucks" argument can be made on specific instances of specific machines.

But you can't make that argument across the board. As a general rule, computerized randomness is better, not worse, than randomness from dice, roulette wheels, and shuffled cards. Gambling is based on actual randomness, not approximations of randomness. And real world cards, dice, and wheels are actually pretty poor performers when it comes to generating random numbers. Not the other way around. Computers, with proper design, are FAR superior to physical devices to generate randomness.

Quote: Ahigh

As a general rule, computerized randomness is better, not worse, than randomness from dice, roulette wheels, and shuffled cards. Gambling is based on actual randomness, not approximations of randomness. And real world cards, dice, and wheels are actually pretty poor performers when it comes to generating random numbers. Not the other way around. Computers, with proper design, are FAR superior to physical devices to generate randomness.

Thank you, Ahigh, just what I've been saying.
The problem is, pRNG, even though it's not
true random, has more statistical accuracy.
And it's obvious to anybody who plays both
of them. What works on one, doesn't work
on the other.

Quote: EvenBob

Thank you, Ahigh, just what I've been saying.
The problem is, pRNG, even though it's not
true random, has more statistical accuracy.
And it's obvious to anybody who plays both
of them. What works on one, doesn't work
on the other.

Didn't I say humans /live games are less random then RNG's and you disagreed with that? What ever the case, I'm certain YOU Cant tell tell difference, and its not obvious., YOU just think it is .

If its so obvious, accept a challenge. I would be impressed if you could get close.

Quote: AxelWolf

What ever the case, I'm certain YOU Cant tell tell difference, and its not obvious., YOU just think it is .

Just as I'm certain YOU can't tell the difference
so you assume nobody can. As soon as you prove
to me they are the same, I'll be happy to show
how they aren't.

Technically there is nothing random in the universe, and we just can't understand the process with our minds alone.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Technically there is nothing random in the universe, and we just can't understand the process with our minds alone.

I don't even understand this post. Everything is random,
not nothing is random.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Technically there is nothing random in the universe, and we just can't understand the process with our minds alone.

I'm with Bob. If we can't understand the process, how can you know it's not random? Maybe there really is true randomness, in areas such as atomic decay and quantum mechanics.

Quote: dwheatley

I'm with Bob. If we can't understand the process, how can you know it's not random? Maybe there really is true randomness, in areas such as atomic decay and quantum mechanics.

Quote: Ahigh

Interesting, but I don't see how it applies
to everyday life.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Ahigh

Interesting, but I don't see how it applies
to everyday life.

It proves some people are bad luck.

Observing random results is like observing the patterns on the film to see if it's behaving like a wave or like a particle. You can see that it follows a law (for example, expected distribution) but if you were to look at the PROCESS of how the resolution occurs, it might actually CHANGE the result of the actual behavior.

In the case of a pseudo random number generator, there is a full history of all the ones and zeros that led up to the result.

But in the case of physics based on the actual physical world, you might have something that more closely resembles how a particle behaves differently when observed if you tried to understand how the randomness worked.

Quote: EvenBob

Just as I'm certain YOU can't tell the difference
so you assume nobody can. As soon as you prove
to me they are the same, I'll be happy to show
how they aren't.

That's like asking me to prove there is no Big Foot to some quack. I never said I could prove they are the same. I'm not arguing if they are different or the same. All that does not matter. What really matters is if someone can tell the diffidence in a manner you claim. It almost impossible to really tell if a short term group of numbers are random or not, unless you can predict them in advance.

You dam well know what you are asking me to do is a cop out, just to save face and pretend you can do something you cant. You leave no possibility of being proven wrong.

Personally I think a RNG is better at being random than a live game. I don't think I can tell the difference. Then again, I don't claim I can beat live games of chance
(*cough* roulette) that have a -EV in casinos

Put your money where your mouth is. I made you a tentative offer on a bet. I will even give you odds(I have a feeling tons of action would roll in on the NO). since you are so certain you can do it, why not? its free money. And you will shut up all your critics and add validity to your BS roulette system.


Online casinos or a BM casino where the RNG is rigged or gaffed, this can be done and has. But, in a normal situation on 99.99% of the machines in Nevada and most other jurisdictions that must use RNG, I know YOU cant tell the diffidence.

Quote: AxelWolf

I never said I could prove they are the same. .

By telling me they are the same, with no proof
at all, you're no better than me saying they
are the same. When you call someone out as
a liar, you have to have proof, not just your
opinion. Which is all you have here.

So again, produce some proof I am wrong
or we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your
opinion on the subject is meaningless.

Quote: EvenBob

By telling me they are the same, with no proof
at all, you're no better than me saying they
are the same. When you call someone out as
a liar, you have to have proof, not just your
opinion. Which is all you have here.

So again, produce some proof I am wrong
or we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your
opinion on the subject is meaningless.

I'm willing to put money where my mouth is. You are the one who is claiming you can do something, I'm saying You cant. The rest is meaningless.

If I claim I can levitate an object with my mind, its not up to you to prove I can't do it. Its up to me to prove I can.

I'm offering to present you with verified Live roulette sessions VS PRNG roulette numbers. since you are so confident, what is the problem? Why not just take the bet/challenge?

You are just double talking and evading. If I claimed I could do something so adamantly like you are, I would be man enough to prove it. I would not be childish and tell people to prove I can't.

Any sequence of PRNG roulette numbers is also capable of being produced on a real roulette wheel.
Simple enough proof that no one can tell them apart with a viable degree of reliability, even the supreme being that EB is.

I would like to thank Axel, Cesspit and Twirdman for doing a great job of defending AP's positiion on the myths of the pRNG.. You did a much better job than my drunk ass can do. Throw a half a jug of whiskey in it and I explode when someone stars perpetuating those myths again. I think it is a disservice to the unknowing. I don't think gambling advice should be taken from someone who likes taking over 5% the worst of it. Whether its a pRNG or a real roulette wheel there are about 6 quadrillion possible patterns/outcomes in just a string of 10 ganes. None of us have ever seen even one tenth of one percent of those patterns/outcomes. So telling someone you see patterns, and you speak from experience, is rediculous.

Quote: mickeycrimm

I would like to thank Axel, Cesspit and Twirdman for doing a great job of defending AP's positiion on the myths of the pRNG.. You did a much better job than my drunk ass can do. Throw a half a jug of whiskey in it and I explode when someone stars perpetuating those myths again. I think it is a disservice to the unknowing. I don't think gambling advice should be taken from someone who likes taking over 5% the worst of it. Whether its a pRNG or a real roulette wheel there are about 6 quadrillion possible patterns/outcomes in just a string of 10 ganes. None of us have ever seen even one tenth of one percent of those patterns/outcomes. So telling someone you see patterns, and you speak from experience, is rediculous.

Thanks for the compliment however I don't think I did a good job at defending anything. I was willing to put my money where my mouth was in order to disprove that, as Jeepster put it, Bob would have to be a supreme being to be able to accurately identify by just playing . Under normal Circumstances. I would be willing to go one step further and say he cant even tell the difference between a Live Roulette wheel and me just making up some numbers. Or some really crappy RNG generated by a video game.

You guys should stop fighting Bob on this. People with his superstitious beliefs are the ones that keep the casinos running and allow all you APs to skim off your little percentages while remaining in the noise.

Quote: jml24

You guys should stop fighting Bob on this. People with his superstitious beliefs are the ones that keep the casinos running and allow all you APs to skim off your little percentages while remaining in the noise.

You are absolutely right, I was thinking of the same thing however, I'm trying to turn this into a + EV betting opportunity. I'm not sure if he has the balls to make a bet. He can come up with a million reason or excuses not to bet. He will probably just run and hide from the thread like normal. But we all know the truth why he would avoid betting something he is so dam sure about. I think bob just wants to act like he knows something others don't some kind of a ego thing perhaps do defend why he can't really AP.

This information probably wont change anyone's mind(just like people who believe in religion). Certainly not enough to change much.

For the most part, you either get it or you don't when it comes to gabeling and things of this nature. You can be the smartest person in the world or the dumbest person, it does not matter, you either get it or you don't, almost like talent. I have known people, who have never really gambled and they get it after explaining it to them once. Sure most people just don't get gambling, even if they think they do. Its like you are born with the ability to get it, or your not.

Thing is, there are ways of showing random generators to be well, (probably) random, in the short term. So even his claim of people not being able to show pRNGs and RNGs are the same in the short term is false. Course, you can't -prove- it in the sense of mathematical, scientific proof. But there's no need to for such a claim. The long term analysis of a good pRNGs proves them to be equivalent as RNG source. It's nonsense and hookum to suggest that there is a short term effect that is hidden when looking at the long term... as tests for random systems look at the short term correlations as well as the overall statistics.

That excuse for not doing a test just doesn't face any sort of smell test.

On the other side, I haven't seen anyone convert the binary RNG tests for non-binary streams. Has anyone seen any work extending the NIST tests in that direction?

Quote: AxelWolf

When Bob is proven wrong he disappears. I remember the JJ thread(he made a speech how she would never prove to be a real person) The evidence kept swinging back and forth if she was real or not. Every time it looked as if she was real, he disappeared. Every time there was doubt he would chime in saying I told you so type of remarks.

There are other times where Bob disappears when he is wrong.

Hey.... Be nice to Bob.... or I'll report you to President Romney.... oh wait.....

Quote: thecesspit

Thing is, there are ways of showing random generators to be well, (probably) random, in the short term. So even his claim of people not being able to show pRNGs and RNGs are the same in the short term is false. Course, you can't -prove- it in the sense of mathematical, scientific proof. But there's no need to for such a claim. The long term analysis of a good pRNGs proves them to be equivalent as RNG source. It's nonsense and hookum to suggest that there is a short term effect that is hidden when looking at the long term... as tests for random systems look at the short term correlations as well as the overall statistics.

That excuse for not doing a test just doesn't face any sort of smell test.

On the other side, I haven't seen anyone convert the binary RNG tests for non-binary streams. Has anyone seen any work extending the NIST tests in that direction?

Im not sure exactly what all you just said.

Bob simply thinks that machines don't ACT like live table games in the short term. Excuse why his roulette system does not work on a machine.

I have no doubt this could be true on some online casinos or a lower class machines. I doubt he can even tell them apart.

If Bob could tell the difference between them he would be considered a gaming Gog, Oh wait, he already considers himself one.

I would be more then happy to eat crow on this. It would be very very amazing and I would bow to him and beg for him to sell me his system at that point. I would have to believe everything the guy says.

I offer up a simple challenge he can do from his house. We can get different groups a verified spins from both live roulette tables and RNG roulette and if he cant match them all accurately He wins. I will put up money as well.

I see dead people and PRNG's

Quote: AxelWolf

Im not sure exactly what all you just said.

Simply, his rejection that you can't prove a pRNG is the same as a RNG while true on the word 'proof' is wrong in that you can show pretty well in the short term that a system is faulty. Or suspect.

Quote:

Bob simply thinks that machines don't ACT like live table games in the short term. Excuse why his roulette system does not work on a machine.
I have no doubt this could be true on some online casinos or a lower class machines. I doubt he can even tell them apart.

If you look at debates passim with Bob, he claims they aren't 'proper random'. I think he is now claiming that pRNGs are too statisitcally correct. Whatever that means, and Live Roulette has some short time biases.

Quote:

I offer up a simple challenge he can do from his house. We can get different groups a verified spins from both live roulette tables and RNG roulette and if he cant match them all accurately He wins. I will put up money as well.

You are wasting your time. I'm more likely to win the BC 6/49 lottery this weekend than Bob to agree to any sort of wager online.

Quote: thecesspit

You are wasting your time.

No he's not. Bob is entertained.

Quote: thecesspit

The long term analysis of a good pRNGs proves them to be equivalent as RNG source.

Two guys go from from NYC to LA. One
flies and the other walks. They both arrive
in LA eventually, so by gosh, all that matters
is they both got there, not how they got there.

That's your argument.

Quote: EvenBob

Two guys go from from NYC to LA. One
flies and the other walks. They both arrive
in LA eventually, so by gosh, all the matters
is they both got there, not how they got there.

That's your argument.

Incorrect.

Quote: thecesspit

Incorrect.

It's what you said. The long term results are
the same for RNG and pRNG. The results for
a plane trip and walking are the same. The
details apparently don't matter. To those who
argue this, there are no details.

I don't even want to argue if they are random or not random or how they work. I don't care unless I can take advantage of them. I not interested in playing A 100% game unless there is other benefits. I know my results both short term and long term have been have been good. I never got the feeling A IGT, Bally, Sigma or Williams were Fing me. Some Online casinos yes but that's a different topic.

The only thing I'm interested in Is Bob proving he can tell the diffidence between that of a live game and a Video machine PRNG. He could play 100 hrs or 1 hr and There is no way he can tell the difference. The only way he can tell the diffidence is by sitting at them because there is a sign telling him it's different. Once he sits down, he already has it in his head a machine is rigged/gaffed/ predetermined or whatever and he starts to notice patterns after the fact.

Quote: EvenBob

It's what you said. The long term results are
the same for RNG and pRNG. The results for
a plane trip and walking are the same. The
details apparently don't matter. To those who
argue this, there are no details.

Your analogy is false and a straw man.

I'm not going to waste time wising you up.

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't even want to argue if they are random or not random or how they work. I don't care unless I can take advantage of them. I not interested in playing A 100% game unless there is other benefits. I know my results both short term and long term have been have been good. I never got the feeling A IGT, Bally, Sigma or Williams were Fing me. Some Online casinos yes but that's a different topic.

The only thing I'm interested in Is Bob proving he can tell the diffidence between that of a live game and a Video machine PRNG. He could play 100 hrs or 1 hr and There is no way he can tell the difference. The only way he can tell the diffidence is by sitting at them because there is a sign telling him it's different. Once he sits down, he already has it in his head a machine is rigged/gaffed/ predetermined or whatever and he starts to notice patterns after the fact.

Your challenge is a good one. It just won't ever be answered.

Since I program games, I am intimately familiar with particular random number generators and how they work.

Even if you're not a programmer, from Windows, Bob, you can install Strawberry Perl.

http://strawberryperl.com

Then you can read about how to install some random number generators:



Then learn enough about perl to write a couple of programs to test stuff.

Maybe install

http://search.cpan.org/~mikek/Statistics-Distributions-1.02/Distributions.pm

These math guys gave me a hard time about knowing more about this stuff, and I learned. There's no reason that you can't learn too.

But here something that's not nice. When you don't know what you're talking about and then going and telling someone who knows more than you do that he is wrong and you're right. That's actually an insult, really. Maybe hidden behind a couple of layers.

But if you actually learn stuff, you might be able to correct someone and you could be the one who is right.

So go and install perl and some random number generators and learn about chi-squared tests and maybe you could pinpoint a specific random number generator that is known to be used in a slot machine and assert how it's not like real random or something.

In the ten commandments, there something about operating on hunches being a bad thing.

I think that's the domain where your brain is right now.

It's really impolite to waste people's time. Especially when they are trying to help.

Quote: thecesspit

Your challenge is a good one. It just won't ever be answered.

I answered it several times yet he keeps
repeating it. Prove they are the same in
in the short term first. He can't. He just
assumes they are because they're the
same in the long term. He has not even
the vaguest idea how to prove they are
the same in the short term.

It's the 'does god exist' argument. Just
because you believe it doesn't make it
so. Prove it.

Quote: thecesspit

I'm not going to waste time wising you up.

lol. Pretty much what I thought you'd say. Towel,
consider yourself thrown in from Canada..

Quote: Ahigh

When you don't know what you're talking about

I keep hearing that and hearing that, with
not a shred of proof that in the very short
term, they are the same.

Teach me, oh wise one, show me that they
are identical in every way. You claim they
are, should be a piece of cake.

" That's like asking me to prove there is no Big Foot to some quack. "

And yet I have a picture of me and Sasquash. I would post it, but that might make you look foolish !

Quote: Buzzard

And yet I have a picture of me and Sasquash. I would post it, but that might make you look foolish !

I believe in Sas, I just don't believe in you..