All mathmatical systems will beat any crap, roulette or other similar game
slackyhacky in his Excel worksheet still "wins" on every win during any length of a win streak of length 2 or higher.Quote: IbeatyouracesSince the OP does not double his bet after the 1st loss, all he will do is break even no matter how long the losing streak lasts: -1, -1, -2, -4, -8, +16 = "0"
True, he breaks even on any length of a lose streak followed by the first win after the lose streak.(LLLLW)
So his average "session win" per 40,134 spins for roulette (in his worksheet) is $9,005
average number of repeat wins per 40,134 trials:
~9005
handy formula: =(n-1)*(p^2) [where n = # of spins; p = win prob]
(40134-1)*((18/38)^2) = 9004.911
Quote: boymimbo
If you are sitting on $1,048,576, you would be much better off sticking the money in investments that yielded say 5 - 6% (like a money market, some stock that pays dividends, or some income fund), then take that $50 - 60K every year and play whatever your favorite game is.
.
5-6% Money Market??? I might have better luck getting a Martingale to work than finding that kind of return now.
But as for good accountants...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekp9dmXM7Qs
Quote: mustangsallyslackyhacky in his Excel worksheet still "wins" on every win during any length of a win streak of length 2 or higher.
True, he breaks even on any length of a lose streak followed by the first win after the lose streak.(LLLLW)
So his average "session win" per 40,134 spins for roulette (in his worksheet) is $9,005
average number of repeat wins per 40,134 trials:
~9005
handy formula: =(n-1)*(p^2) [where n = # of spins; p = win prob]
(40134-1)*((18/38)^2) = 9004.911
Thank you! That is a handy formula. (And it helps assure me my math on the spreadsheet is correct.)
And I appreciate your post because it points out nicely why I even started saying this stuff in the first place. People, like rdw4potus, say things that I didn't understand, and that is that you NEVER end up ahead in martingale. I simply made a spreadsheet to show that MOST of the time, if you don't impose limits, you will end up ahead. You aren't coming back to your starting point AT ALL, you gain over time.
And I totally agree with boymimbo that it isn't a sound way to bet, that the risk is too great for the gains - and despite me agreeing with that over and over, people like fish dude keep saying that if I think it is such a great betting system, I just need to go do it.
I used that streak calculator you pointed to - it said that over 1 mil rolls, to have a streak of 24 of losses was about 8%.
So using martingale, you would have an 8% chance of losing 10 mill, but a 92% of winning using martingale. Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but it seemed to me that the resounding voice was martingale fails every time. " You can't make a dime." "You bet TONS of money to only win 0.25."
Then the idea of infinity somehow come about - not sure why.
Although I would like to know what the record of longest streak of not hitting a color in the history of roulette is. Hearsay on the net is 36. Let's say it is 40. That would take 5.5 trillion dollars to double the loses to cover that.
Lets say you were going to play 40,134 times. Using your streak calculator, that gives me the chances of 0.000000105120642 of losing my 5.5 trillion dollars, and 99.99998949% chance of winning $9005.
Now, as boymimbo points out - that is a horrible investment. Agreed. (But on the other hand, who is visiting vegas to gamble for investment reasons. If they are, something is seriously wrong with them). Now why isn't that mathematically sound? That seems pretty mathematically sound to me. Mathematically sound is not synonymous with not foolish. That has always been my point.
"A Man's Got to Know His Limitations"Quote: slackyhackyPerhaps I wasn't very clear, but it seemed to me that the resounding voice was martingale fails every time. " You can't make a dime." "You bet TONS of money to only win 0.25."
Now why isn't that mathematically sound? That seems pretty mathematically sound to me. Mathematically sound is not synonymous with not foolish. That has always been my point.
Not everyone thinks a Marty is foolish by it's cover.
Even Micheal Bluejay points out the pros and cons at his site.
Good reading.
The Martingale Betting System
Without looking. OK.Quote: slackyhackyLets say you were going to play 40,134 times. Using your streak calculator, that gives me the chances of 0.000000105120642 of losing my 5.5 trillion dollars, and 99.99998949% chance of winning $9005.
It also means that 9,999,998,949 out of 10 billion will win $9005 the first time while 1051 lost 5.5 trillion.
Who from the 9,999,998,949 now wants to go again?
Now, that is gambling!
Quote: slackyhacky
And I appreciate your post because it points out nicely why I even started saying this stuff in the first place. People, like rdw4potus, say things that I didn't understand, and that is that you NEVER end up ahead in martingale. I simply made a spreadsheet to show that MOST of the time, if you don't impose limits, you will end up ahead. You aren't coming back to your starting point AT ALL, you gain over time.
I would argue that you did impose limits. You limited time, but not bet size. That (almost) always shows a net win. Limiting bet size but not limiting time always shows a net loss. The case where time and bet size are both limited (the real world case) can go either way in a given trial, but tends over many trials to produce small wins and large losses that sum to approximately the small net loss that would be expected by flat-betting. The final case, where time and bet size are both unlimited, is the one that brings out conversations about infinity.
Quote: slackyhacky
So using martingale, you would have an 8% chance of losing 10 mill, but a 92% of winning using martingale. Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but it seemed to me that the resounding voice was martingale fails every time. " You can't make a dime." "You bet TONS of money to only win 0.25."
(1000000-1)*((18/38)^2)=224376.5. So over your 1,000,000 spins, there's an 8% chance of losing $10,000,000 and, if I'm doing this right, a 92% chance of winning $224,376. (.08*-$10,000,000)+(.92*$224,376)=-$593,574. So over multiple trials you should expect to lose about 5.94% of your money. That's in the ball park of what I'd expect, but I'm surprised it isn't closer to 5.26%. I'm probably doing something wrong...
Got to set the record straight.Quote: slackyhacky
I used that streak calculator you pointed to - it said that over 1 mil rolls, to have a streak of 24 of losses was about 8%.
8%, That is not correct. That is for a win streak.
It looks like you entered 18/38 (0.473684211) for the prob of success instead of 20/38 (0.526315789).
We are concerned with the lose streak prob. So use 20/38 instead.
answer: 9.2165122063199%
as also shown in my earlier thread
Earlier post
added: so, do you still feel good?
Quote: mustangsallyGot to set the record straight.
8%, That is not correct. That is for a win streak.
It looks like you entered 18/38 (0.473684211) for the prob of success instead of 20/38 (0.526315789).
We are concerned with the lose streak prob. So use 20/38 instead.
answer: 9.2165122063199%
as also shown in my earlier thread
Earlier post
added: so, do you still feel good?
I actually got 8% by putting in a wrong number (0.523) rather than put in 0.52631579.
Quote: mustangsallyGot to set the record straight.
8%, That is not correct. That is for a win streak.
It looks like you entered 18/38 (0.473684211) for the prob of success instead of 20/38 (0.526315789).
We are concerned with the lose streak prob. So use 20/38 instead.
answer: 9.2165122063199%
as also shown in my earlier thread
Earlier post
added: so, do you still feel good?
I actually got 8% by putting in a wrong number (0.523) rather than put in 0.52631579.
And now that I have done this exercise, I understand your table. :)
Quote: rdw4potus(1000000-1)*((18/38)^2)=224376.5. So over your 1,000,000 spins, there's an 8% chance of losing $10,000,000 and, if I'm doing this right, a 92% chance of winning $224,376. (.08*-$10,000,000)+(.92*$224,376)=-$593,574. So over multiple trials you should expect to lose about 5.94% of your money. That's in the ball park of what I'd expect, but I'm surprised it isn't closer to 5.26%. I'm probably doing something wrong...
I'm sorry for not answering your post. I really thought I had.
Here goes.
No, you did everything right.
You did the wager EV part correct.
But now you need to divide that by the total bet for the 1million spins to figure the HA.
The numbers to use would be closer to:
=(0.092*-10000000)+(0.908*224377)
-716,265.68 EV
EV / Total bet = HA
so we need to calculate the total bets made.
This can be done from the expected number of lose streaks multiplied by the number of units bet per streak.
I get 13,160,312.
from each Marty (1,1,2,4,8...plus the Win bet)My table is messy and I did not round so I will not show my work here.
Add 224,377 for the number of repeat wins at $1 each bet
total wagered 13,384,689
-716,265.684 EV / 13,384,689 = -0.053513876
rdw, you did just fine.
slackyhacky was only after a finite, very large bankroll to show a very high session win rate.
He did just that.
Sally
If a beatable game existed, do you really think casino's would offer it? It just irks me when I see people post things such as "the unbeatable roulette system"...or "how to beat the casino"...
about the beatable games don't exist...if this would be a universal rule i guess this site would not exist. there are certain games in a casino that can be beat...but martingale never is the current approach.
Irks me when they say "not an agency" and the girl that shows up is from an agency. Anybody with an unbeatable roulette system wouldn't be selling pamphlets about it, he would be sitting at a roulette table applying his system.Quote: TriplellIt just irks me when I see people post things such as "the unbeatable roulette system"...or "how to beat the casino"...
Quote: TriplellIt has been proven over and over why the house edge doesn't change regardless of bet orientation, but think about it logically.
If a beatable game existed, do you really think casino's would offer it? It just irks me when I see people post things such as "the unbeatable roulette system"...or "how to beat the casino"...
It just irks me when I read items similar to this KNOWING that the author has most likely spent a TOTAL of 9 hours in their lifetime, studying/testing/playing roulette.
Not saying you Triplell, I'm speaking in general terms.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjIt just irks me when I read items similar to this KNOWING that the author has most likely spent a TOTAL of 9 hours in their lifetime, studying/testing/playing roulette.
Not saying you Triplell, I'm speaking in general terms.
Ken
Spending 9 hours studying roulette is like studying a math problem for 9 hours. The game mechanics are simple, the odds are easy to calculate. You could spend your lifetime studying roulette and you're still not going to find out more about the game then anyone else....
Quote: mrjjjIt just irks me when I read items similar to this KNOWING that the author has most likely spent a TOTAL of 9 hours in their lifetime, studying/testing/playing roulette.
Not saying you Triplell, I'm speaking in general terms.
Ken
It takes you more than 9 hours to divide 2 by 38?
This is fine if they are happy to admit that the believe each spin is not independent of the previous spins. It does mean it's pointless arguing from a standard probability model.
Even long term, over a year, a martingale with enough trials and a high spread is highly likely to yield the results you're looking for, but the small chance that it won't makes it not worth it.
If you're a multimillionaire with millions to spend, then you won't care about making $30,000 a year with a 8% probability to lose everything. It's chump change.
Most martingalers, like it or not, have a limited bankroll with a few thousand dollars at most to play and they will play at a table with the appropriate limit, and won't think to move to a higher limit table. With a 10,240 bankroll, you've got 12 shots.
$5, $5, $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320, $640, $1280, $2,560, $5,120.
And let's say you go once a week, for four hours. At 40 spins an hour, that's 160 shots and a 3.169% chance of ruin. Not much, I realize, but if you do that every week, guess what, over a year, the odds of you going broke at least once goes to 81.24% ((1-.03169)^52).
So, you win will be limited to the number of winning spins in a row as your winning. So, perhaps, you might get away with $170 - 180 (the odds of winning 2 bets in a row is about 22%) on any given night, and you can brag to your friends for a few months that you're martingaling system has won you $700/month. Maybe you'll get cocky and start going twice a week, then three times a week.
Then, as it always does, 11 reds come up in a row, and you're sitting there, ready to place your bet of $5,120, knowing full well in the back of your head that the odds of it hitting red are 20/38. Do you make the bet? I don't.
silly
Quote: TriplellSpending 9 hours studying roulette is like studying a math problem for 9 hours. The game mechanics are simple, the odds are easy to calculate. You could spend your lifetime studying roulette and you're still not going to find out more about the game then anyone else....
Brings up an interesting point (I should do a thread on it), I wonder what the over/under is (in terms of hours or minutes, lol) as far as how long it took before throwing in the towel on roulette? I think I'll keep it at 9 hours.
.....maybe a little bit of testing, reading a couple books, yeah, that covers around 9 hours. (LMAO) The heck with it, I'll play blackjack and CLAIM to be an AP (cough) guy, bow down....I said bow down to me.
Ken
Quote: thecesspitDon't bother. MrJJJ (and he the more vocal poster, but not ) will claim that roulette short term isn't about the 2/38, and is much more subtle.
This is fine if they are happy to admit that the believe each spin is not independent of the previous spins. It does mean it's pointless arguing from a standard probability model.
Look who's talking, wannabee winner. You run your mouth but have NOTHING to offer up. Wait let me guess, the house has no advantage over you....you run the show....you make your own rules....you have the EDGE over the casino. Pretty accurate? (lol) Walk it like you talk it hotshot, very FEW are impressed with all your hot air nonsense. (The GG board is here? .....nah.....cant be)
Ken
Quote: IbeatyouracesMrjjj cracks me up. Right at this very moment, I have a 3.48% ADVANTAGE over the casino.
Hey, you're not so bad yourself. (lol) Good luck at......whatever it is you play.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjLook who's talking, wannabee winner. You run your mouth but have NOTHING to offer up. Wait let me guess, the house has no advantage over you....you run the show....you make your own rules....you have the EDGE over the casino. Pretty accurate? (lol) Walk it like you talk it hotshot, very FEW are impressed with all your hot air nonsense. (The GG board is here? .....nah.....cant be)
Ken
Ah, Ken, Ken, Ken... you see, I pay attention around here. You don't.
Firstly, I am shocked at you attacking ME rather than the message. Isn't that something you dislike?
Secondly, your guesses are ALL wrong. I don't claim to be a winner, I don't have an advantage over the house in any game. I don't think Roulette is a mathematically beatable game, but I do think some people will win money at it.
Thirdly, if you paid attention, I was stating a very clear fact : There's no point debating roulette with you if all I say is "The house advantage is 5.26%" and stop. That's actually, surprisingly, not an attack on you. That's an acknowledgement that you think there's more to roulette than the house edge.
Fourthly, I don't care if you are impressed. I don't think you magically speak for the board or anyone else, so who knows if any is impressed, think it's hot air nonsense that I speak or anything else. And if your paying enough attention to know no-one is impressed, how come you don't know I am not a Advantage Player? Strange huh?
Fifthly (man, you out did yourself this time), I've contributed in many places, offer ideas and break downs of strategies when the mood takes me, and people can debate them (and do so). I've never posted an edge play... because I don't have any to contribute that I use, are interesting or new.
Sixthly, I have in the past actually TOLD you how I play roulette. I bet the last 5 numbers. It's to me as good as any other system.
So guess again, hot-shot. I assume you are better at Roulette than going 0 for 6 like you have done here. You'd do better not to "just assume" what you think you know about someone, and attack them on your standard lines when it's just not true, and not what that person has EVER represented themselves as, and has told you this time and time again.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIts not hard to figure out what I'm playing and why I have the advantage.
Ok, I'll join the gang as well. As of TODAY, I quit roulette.....I now have the advantage ! (lol)
The internet is fun, you can be whoever you want. At least I have the NUTS to post what I play, 5.26%. I'll post it, big deal?
Ken
Quote: thecesspitAh, Ken, Ken, Ken... you see, I pay attention around here. You don't.
Firstly, I am shocked at you attacking ME rather than the message. Isn't that something you dislike?
Secondly, your guesses are ALL wrong. I don't claim to be a winner, I don't have an advantage over the house in any game. I don't think Roulette is a mathematically beatable game, but I do think some people will win money at it.
Thirdly, if you paid attention, I was stating a very clear fact : There's no point debating roulette with you if all I say is "The house advantage is 5.26%" and stop. That's actually, surprisingly, not an attack on you. That's an acknowledgement that you think there's more to roulette than the house edge.
Fourthly, I don't care if you are impressed. I don't think you magically speak for the board or anyone else, so who knows if any is impressed, think it's hot air nonsense that I speak or anything else. And if your paying enough attention to know no-one is impressed, how come you don't know I am not a Advantage Player? Strange huh?
Fifthly (man, you out did yourself this time), I've contributed in many places, offer ideas and break downs of strategies when the mood takes me, and people can debate them (and do so). I've never posted an edge play... because I don't have any to contribute that I use, are interesting or new.
Sixthly, I have in the past actually TOLD you how I play roulette. I bet the last 5 numbers. It's to me as good as any other system.
So guess again, hot-shot. I assume you are better at Roulette than going 0 for 6 like you have done here. You'd do better not to "just assume" what you think you know about someone, and attack them on your standard lines when it's just not true, and not what that person has EVER represented themselves as, and has told you this time and time again.
Listen up, I'll tear into all day if needed. You ATTACK posters on this forum and then cleverly try to disguise it. You are a hater of others that do well. Does this bother me? No, the TRUTH is, I actually NEED guys like you. People like you make me look good. I'll tell ya something man, when I'm playing (hopefully a winning day), do you know what I'm thinking about as they are sliding chips over to me? You. Thats right, yourself and guys like you, I love it. If you cant win at roulette, dont blame me, I have NOTHING to do with your losses. Cry us all a river....maybe take up stamp collecting or something? Thats sounds nice, hey?
Ken
Quote: IbeatyouracesI have them too. I'm playing 3cp and I KNOW 1 of the dealers cards with the 1/4/5 ante bonus gives ME a 3.48% ADVANTAGE. I'm up $1900 today as of this post :)
....and this means what to me? I thought the focus was on attacking me? Am I at the correct board? GG, right? Lets focus more attention on me and how I dont/cant win, thank you. BTW, same rules for everyone......can you PROVE you are up $1,900?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjListen up, I'll tear into all day if needed. You ATTACK posters on this forum and then cleverly try to disguise it. You are a hater of others that do well. Does this bother me? No, the TRUTH is, I actually NEED guys like you. People like you make me look good. I'll tell ya something man, when I'm playing (hopefully a winning day), do you know what I'm thinking about as they are sliding chips over to me? You. Thats right, yourself and guys like you, I love it. If you cant win at roulette, dont blame me, I have NOTHING to do with your losses. Cry us all a river....maybe take up stamp collecting or something? Thats sounds nice, hey?
Ken
This is an attack? I've been savaged worse by my grandmother's 15 year old toothless lap dog. You couldn't tear into a paper bag with both hands and a machete.
I am not "a hater" of others that do well. I am a hater of people who lie, make logical fallacies and speak nothing but nonsense and hot air. I wonder who fits that mark right now, Ken. I'm interested in the Mathematics of various gambling games. I find systems and methods intellectually interesting. I also do enjoy batting down flies like you. I do it for kicks, Ken. It's fun to do something so easy sometimes.
I don't blame you for losing at roulette. I am not sure where you even got that idea, laughing boy. I don't care if you win or lose, as when I am enjoying my day, you know how much I am thinking of you, Ken? Not one little bit. But I'm glad I am in your mind, Ken, and that you need me. But, just so you know, it's not mutual.
Again, you are so far of the mark it's laughable. I don't think you could find the mark with a GPS marker and a personal guide.
Ken
Quote: thecesspitThis is an attack? I've been savaged worse by my grandmother's 15 year old toothless lap dog. You couldn't tear into a paper bag with both hands and a machete.
I am not "a hater" of others that do well. I am a hater of people who lie, make logical fallacies and speak nothing but nonsense and hot air. I wonder who fits that mark right now, Ken. I'm interested in the Mathematics of various gambling games. I find systems and methods intellectually interesting. I also do enjoy batting down flies like you. I do it for kicks, Ken. It's fun to do something so easy sometimes.
I don't blame you for losing at roulette. I am not sure where you even got that idea, laughing boy. I don't care if you win or lose, as when I am enjoying my day, you know how much I am thinking of you, Ken? Not one little bit. But I'm glad I am in your mind, Ken, and that you need me. But, just so you know, it's not mutual.
Again, you are so far of the mark it's laughable. I don't think you could find the mark with a GPS marker and a personal guide.
People here find you amusing. I know guys just like you.....you lose and lose and lose, so your way of venting is to ATTACK others. It 'somewhat' makes up for all your losses (well, kind of). You're not thinking of me? Thats odd, then why post over and over again attacking me? Sounds like you might be LYING, again. Yes you did lie.....you are NOT a hater of others that do well? Thats a load of BS and you know it. Let me give you a piece of advice......dont try and outlast me. I will NOT apologize for doing well with roulette. Stop waiting for me to say so, it won't happen.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjPeople here find you amusing. I know guys just like you.....you lose and lose and lose, so your way of venting is to ATTACK others. It 'somewhat' makes up for all your losses (well, kind of). You're not thinking of me? Thats odd, then why post over and over again attacking me? Sounds like you might be LYING, again. Yes you did lie.....you are NOT a hater of others that do well? Thats a load of BS and you know it. Let me give you a piece of advice......dont try and outlast me. I will NOT apologize for doing well with roulette. Stop waiting for me to say so, it won't happen.
Ken
People find me amusing because I am funny, witty and urbane.
People find you amusing because your are the forum clown, waiting for your next prat fall.
Again, your powers of reading fail. I hardly play in the casino. When I do, I sometimes lose, I sometimes win. Much like most players. I tend to do okay at the sports bets, and I tend to lose at VP (my preferred game). I am hardly angry about my losses, Ken. Attacking your foolish posts doesn't make up for jack-all in the casino.
I post over and over again, because you keep replying with lies and conjecture about me that are well, worth replying to to point out how daft you look. But once I post, Ken, I'm done. I just come back again to read whats been updated on the site, and if I see someone say something I disagree with... I post.
I have no idea why you think I am waiting for you to apologize at doing well at Roulette. I'm not. I don't think you need to apologize for it. What's to apologize about?
Stop projecting, Ken, and deciding I make a statement for any other reason than what I put in my post. Other people have tried this cheap psycho-analysis BS on me, and they've been shown to be blithering idiots. You are walking down the same path, and it's a dead-end, cool-breeze.
Don't call me a liar with out any evidence to back it up (and you have none except supposition on my "motives" that you've made up in your own little world, and that counts for nothing).
Keep barking, Ken, keep barking.
Quote: s2dbakerSorry Ken, thecesspit is correct and you are wrong. There is no way to beat the casino at Roulette using anything other than pure luck and no one really cares if you had pizza for lunch. Go ahead and start the pizza for lunch thread. No one will care.
I never said anything about starting a thread regarding pizza.
Ken
A few posts earlier on the same pageQuote: mrjjjI never said anything about starting a thread regarding pizza.
Ken
No, I guess you didn't.Quote: mrjjjListen, if I posted that I had pizza for lunch, within ten minutes there would be 7 people attacking me regarding pizza. Do I mind? No but it is a FACT.
Ken
Quote: thecesspitPeople find me amusing because I am funny, witty and urbane.
People find you amusing because your are the forum clown, waiting for your next prat fall.
Again, your powers of reading fail. I hardly play in the casino. When I do, I sometimes lose, I sometimes win. Much like most players. I tend to do okay at the sports bets, and I tend to lose at VP (my preferred game). I am hardly angry about my losses, Ken. Attacking your foolish posts doesn't make up for jack-all in the casino.
I post over and over again, because you keep replying with lies and conjecture about me that are well, worth replying to to point out how daft you look. But once I post, Ken, I'm done. I just come back again to read whats been updated on the site, and if I see someone say something I disagree with... I post.
I have no idea why you think I am waiting for you to apologize at doing well at Roulette. I'm not. I don't think you need to apologize for it. What's to apologize about?
Stop projecting, Ken, and deciding I make a statement for any other reason than what I put in my post. Other people have tried this cheap psycho-analysis BS on me, and they've been shown to be blithering idiots. You are walking down the same path, and it's a dead-end, cool-breeze.
Don't call me a liar with out any evidence to back it up (and you have none except supposition on my "motives" that you've made up in your own little world, and that counts for nothing).
Keep barking, Ken, keep barking.
Lets try this again, you seem to be learning impaired or something. I'll tell you how it will NOT end.....you running your mouth and then me not responding to you. Get that out of your head. (You sure sound like someone else I know) You can not make it through the day without ATTACKING someone. I read most of your posts coolbreeze, if its not me you are ATTACKING, its another member here.
I asked you already....... walk it like you talk it but all we get in return are your childish remarks and personal ATTACKS. Put on your big boy pants and start contributing a bit more. I show my buddies your posts and they end up rolling on the damn floor from laughter. Listen up rookie, you can FOOL some of the members here with your bulls**t but good luck trying it with me. You're a sucker, you just dont know it yet.
Ken
Quote: s2dbakerA few posts earlier on the same pageNo, I guess you didn't.
@s2dbaker >> So where is the part regarding me starting a *THREAD* on the subject?
Ken
A) Says the guy who spent maybe....5-9 hours total, trying different ideas, methods, thinking outside the box etc.
B) I have read at least 5 different versions of what 'beat' means (insert joke, I guess). Your definition? The dictionary definition?
Ken
8+ years, 13+ years, 30+ years etc.
I know, I know.....its a coincidence blah blah blah.
Ken :)
@mrjjj > > So where is the part WHERE I accuse you of wanting to >*=START=*< a thread ON that subJECT?Quote: mrjjj@s2dbaker >> So where is the part regarding me starting a *THREAD* on the subject?
Ken
Quote: mrjjj
I never said anything about starting a thread regarding pizza.
Ken
A few posts earlier on the same page.
(So, where is it?)
Quote: mrjjj
@s2dbaker >> So where is the part regarding me starting a *THREAD* on the subject?
(So where is it?)
Is everyday a winning day? Heck no !!
Ken
