The WoV Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prozema

For all you bromance lovers.

---

More cheap shots from the peanut gallery.

That's OK; I wouldn't expect some of the board members here to understand notions of altruism and empathy; for them jerking off into their hand and then eating it is an advantage play.

---

I'll save everyone a few messages and consolidate the next few here.

Champ Kind : I will smash your face into a car windshield, and then take your mother, Dorothy Mantooth, out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.

Wes Mantooth : Dorothy Mantooth is a Saint!

Ron Burgundy : Hey, let's leave the mothers out of this.

why the fuck would Nathan need a third party to come here and ask for deletion of a picture.

He is not banned

he could easily come here and fend for himself

why is V used as a courrier......lifes too short ..isnt it?

The drama builds and builds until the climactic conclusion ...

My thoughts on Nathan.

@ WOV. Nathan is a troll. Hasn't that been pretty much established. Isn't it all but certain that "Nathan" is a sockpuppet of another member? So a susckpuppet and a troll.

A female who picks a handle of "Nathan". I guess there is no rule against that, but certainly indicates back to the troll thing. "She" was attempting to play the forum and membership.

Almost all of Nathan's actions are trollish. She just keeps starting threads that have no value. Threads specifically designed to be controversial. That is the nature of a troll.

So what was Wizard's response: He elevates Nathan. Gives him/her their own thread to keep the ball rolling. Even talks of consideration of Nathan as a moderator, although I suspect that was never a real consideration. But basically the response was to elevate and give credibility to "Nathan".

So why would Wizard do so? Declining forum numbers. I guess about a year ago (probably on another forum) I mentioned that WoV had about 180 members visit on a weekday and 210 on a weekend day. That was down from 3-4 years ago of averages of 280 on weekdays and 300 on weekends. Well now those numbers are 160-170 weekdays and 180 on weekends. Down slightly more. Down a solid 40% from 3-4 years ago and MUCH more if you are only considering quality.

Nathan and her trollish agenda is popular and creates short-term, negative traffic, so Mike has embraced her. Problem is that it doesn't create new member visits....probably less. What it does is create a little more traffic from a handful of members that enjoy that Nathan troll agenda, so these few members post multiple times in the "Nathan" threads.

Embracing and elevating Nathan is a desperation move. It is not a long-term fix. It is bailing water from a sinking ship at about half the rate that the water is entering. In other words: Embracing and elevating Nathan's credibility was the wrong move! Embracing and elevating Nathan's credibility lowers theWoV and Mike's credibility even further in the direction it was already trending.

Now all that said: Nathan's picture should not be allowed anywhere, there or here. THAT is Doxxing! Dan Druff thinking and coming out today and saying that is OK, should be a concern to any AP's that participate here. It is that attitude that has lead to the exodus and less frequent participation of AP's I am sure.

Just like WoV, this forum is and has been heading in the wrong direction for some time. And just like Wizard, Dan has embraced some trollish shit, like re-instating Singer, that leads to more traffic. But it is negative traffic. It brings out even more trolling and haters. It does not lead to longterm growth. Dan like most forum operators is choosing short term trolling quantity, over longer term forum quality. It is the later that really leads to long-term growth. Unfortunately Dan Druff is thinking short-term, like Alan, worrying about a one day loss, instead of focusing on longterm, and longterm results and wins, like successful AP's do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

My thoughts on Nathan.

@ WOV. Nathan is a troll. Hasn't that been pretty much established. Isn't it all but certain that "Nathan" is a sockpuppet of another member? So a susckpuppet and a troll.

A female who picks a handle of "Nathan". I guess there is no rule against that, but certainly indicates back to the troll thing. "She" was attempting to play the forum and membership.

Almost all of Nathan's actions are trollish. She just keeps starting threads that have no value. Threads specifically designed to be controversial. That is the nature of a troll.

So what was Wizard's response: He elevates Nathan. Gives him/her their own thread to keep the ball rolling. Even talks of consideration of Nathan as a moderator, although I suspect that was never a real consideration. But basically the response was to elevate and give credibility to "Nathan".

So why would Wizard do so? Declining forum numbers. I guess about a year ago (probably on another forum) I mentioned that WoV had about 180 members visit on a weekday and 210 on a weekend day. That was down from 3-4 years ago of averages of 280 on weekdays and 300 on weekends. Well now those numbers are 160-170 weekdays and 180 on weekends. Down slightly more. Down a solid 40% from 3-4 years ago and MUCH more if you are only considering quality.

Nathan and her trollish agenda is popular and creates short-term, negative traffic, so Mike has embraced her. Problem is that it doesn't create new member visits....probably less. What it does is create a little more traffic from a handful of members that enjoy that Nathan troll agenda, so these few members post multiple times in the "Nathan" threads.

Embracing and elevating Nathan is a desperation move. It is not a long-term fix. It is bailing water from a sinking ship at about half the rate that the water is entering. In other words: Embracing and elevating Nathan's credibility was the wrong move! Embracing and elevating Nathan's credibility lowers theWoV and Mike's credibility even further in the direction it was already trending.

Now all that said: Nathan's picture should not be allowed anywhere, there or here. THAT is Doxxing! Dan Druff thinking and coming out today and saying that is OK, should be a concern to any AP's that participate here. It is that attitude that has lead to the exodus and less frequent participation of AP's I am sure.

Just like WoV, this forum is and has been heading in the wrong direction for some time. And just like Wizard, Dan has embraced some trollish shit, like re-instating Singer, that leads to more traffic. But it is negative traffic. It brings out even more trolling and haters. It does not lead to longterm growth. Dan like most forum operators is choosing short term trolling quantity, over longer term forum quality. It is the later that really leads to long-term growth. Unfortunately Dan Druff is thinking short-term, like Alan, worrying about a one day loss, instead of focusing on longterm, and longterm results and wins, like successful AP's do.

---

SO if I post a picture of my plumber working on my toilet and label it "MrV at work".........Then MrV can claim doxxing? Does he have to prove that the picture of my plumber is actually him? Or can he send Axel over here to tell dan to take the pic down. Its only doxxing if the pic is indeed the person who it says it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

why the fuck would Nathan need a third party to come here and ask for deletion of a picture.

He is not banned

he could easily come here and fend for himself

why is V used as a courrier......lifes too short ..isnt it?

---

You are trolling her by continuing to refer to her as a "him." She has never ever made any derogatory comments about you. This is just more evidence what a trolling piece of shit you are. You're a no class racist bum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS__ how about the year I hit two $100K royals. Why would I post on a public forum that I had a profit from gambling? Is posting that you have a profit an advantage play?
LOL

---

I'm fairly sure you have proudly claimed on more than one occasion that you have never had a profitable year gambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS__ how about the year I hit two $100K royals. Why would I post on a public forum that I had a profit from gambling? Is posting that you have a profit an advantage play?
LOL

---

I'm fairly sure you have proudly claimed on more than one occasion that you have never had a profitable year gambling.

---

I think he says that in jest...I think he’s afraid of one of his 12 ex wives reading the forum and trying to stake claim to some of that scratch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Mickeycrimm, if kewlj really meant that losing $8500 was his best day for EV, then what would be his worst day?

If you walked into a bank and asked for a mortgage and said "I lost $8500 but I'm way up on EV" do you think you'd get the mortgage?

Wait, don't answer that. You'd say yes.

---

Probably the day he got the least "Coin in".

The ongoing argument is probably insoluble.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) KJ bases his opitimism on the mathematics-based belief that his method of play will result in a positive expectation over time, i.e. in the long run; in fact at one point he implies that for him at least the long run could be reached in as quickly as thirty days.

Meanwhile alan is on record for pooh-poohing all notions which involve gauging the effectiveess of casino play by looking at results over the long run; he dismisses the relevance of such an analysis, claiming all play is only in the short run, where anything could happen.

Without alan accepting the truth of the fundamental premise of the EV being accurately determinable in the long run there can probably be no satisfactory conclusion to this debate.

I know I am wasting my time and breath, but I will try this slightly different angle for our friend Alan. Alan do you know how almost every professional player and most teams pay themselves or their players. It is based on the EV earned, NOT the actual win.

A solo player as I was for most of my career, will take period payments (paydays). Lets say he pays himself monthly or quarterly. So he starts with a bankroll of say 100K (that happens to be where I set my BR each year). Lets go with monthly. At the end of the month, say a player playing my level of play, could have earned EV of $6000. Now his actual results could be anywhere from -$12,000 to +$18,000 . That range is standard deviation. So regardless of whether the player has had a winning month of say $15,000, a winning month of $9000, a winning month of $2000 or a losing month of $8000, he would base his pay on the EV generated amount of $6000.

Teams work the same way. Many don't break the bank until a predetermined point, but whether they have such a predetermined point, or pay teammates periodically like monthly, it is based on EV earned, not win. The reason is very simple. Actual win fluctuates, but EV is constant. And in the longterm the two will come together. Again, EV is what really matters when looking at the short term. EV is a measuring that gets around the falsehoods of short-term variance or fluctuation. The actual wins and losses are just fluctuation, just variance. Now in the long run the two will come together.

Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I know I am wasting my time and breath, but I will try this slightly different angle for our friend Alan. Alan do you know how almost every professional player and most teams pay themselves or their players. It is based on the EV earned, NOT the actual win.

A solo player as I was for most of my career, will take period payments (paydays). Lets say he pays himself monthly or quarterly. So he starts with a bankroll of say 100K (that happens to be where I set my BR each year). Lets go with monthly. At the end of the month, say a player playing my level of play, could have earned EV of $6000. Now his actual results could be anywhere from -$12,000 to +$18,000 . That range is standard deviation. So regardless of whether the player has had a winning month of say $15,000, a winning month of $9000, a winning month of $2000 or a losing month of $8000, he would base his pay on the EV generated amount of $6000.

Teams work the same way. Many don't break the bank until a predetermined point, but whether they have such a predetermined point, or pay teammates periodically like monthly, it is based on EV earned, not win. The reason is very simple. Actual win fluctuates, but EV is constant. And in the longterm the two will come together. Again, EV is what really matters when looking at the short term. EV is a measuring that gets around the falsehoods of short-term variance or fluctuation. The actual wins and losses are just fluctuation, just variance. Now in the long run the two will come together.

---

Just one note: I would drop the phrase "falsehoods of short-term variance" for something related to vision. The "near-sightedness of short-term variance" or something like that. There's all kinds of cute theories regarding how casinos rope people into being addicts. Getting players to focus on the short-term is obviously one way. It's a kind of keyhole vision. They only see what they want to see through the short-term keyhole. They could simply turn their heads and see the whole picture, but their addictions won't allow it.

I don't remember the exact quote that KJ made about the -$8500 being a great day. In whatever context and whatever the exact quote may be, can we all agree that losing -8500 is not a great day. And then can we all agree that we are not going to agree as to whether accumulating a large amount of +EV while losing that 8500 makes it a good thing or somehow offsets the loss.

Then can we put this to rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

I don't remember the exact quote that KJ made about the -$8500 being a great day. In whatever context and whatever the exact quote may be, can we all agree that losing -8500 is not a great day. And then can we all agree that we are not going to agree as to whether accumulating a large amount of +EV while losing that 8500 makes it a good thing or somehow offsets the loss.

Then can we put this to rest.

---

It's another one of those wording issues. Great day monetarily? No. Great day opportunity wise? Yes.

Let me put it into a VP situation and maybe it'll sort of make sense. His day at blackjack was comparable to playing VP and have a 4 card royal draw on every hand but losing every one. Such great opportunity but just still couldn't win.

AP's "bank on" the same EV that casinos do. The casinos realize their N0(zero) much faster because of the sheer volume of players they get. An AP only has one player at a time.

Exactly. And again I don't remember or care what the exact quote was. Losing bad--winning good. We may all differ on what we believe the value of the EV is.

BS flowing....that's really all you get when any ap gets undressed in front of more of these geniuses.

Here's what happened. First, we all know kew couldn't keep anything to himself even if he were promised every man on earth with giant members would instantly become gay.

Over the years we've all seen many times where this ap or that ap FINALLY tells about getting killed in a casino. After all, we've become SO accustomed to them telling us how much and how often they win!

However, In EVERY instance, they tell a fan-soothing/ego-easing/reputation-saving tale of how either their partner or their spouse "more than made up for my loss today" with a fantastic win! Or you could always count on them telling everyone not to worry, because "I've already recovered those losses by hitting it big today". Phew....now we can all rest easy....The "math" came thru for the ap--again!

Kew, alertly aware of this ap-blather because he reads about gambling a lot, simply chose to blab his ap-success tale from a different angle. He used EV as his vehicle, only as it turned out, that vehicle blew a timing belt faster than my Hellcat can pass an RV.

Kew thought he'd claim a sizeable loss, shocking the crowd, but then came back with what he thought was a "soothing story" of him having his "best EV day of the year" while pretending that the big loss didn't mean beans. Of course, where he clobbers himself with the 4-pinnochios' "I'm a total whack-job" stick is in his super-dooper expert analysis that supposedly says how gamblers treasure piling up positive EV over fattening their wallets. And HERE'S where the BS continues: "EV means a lot because if we find ourselves behind and keep on playing with that fabulous edge, we KNOW we will never be behind by year's end or any other end, because the math tells us we're DUE!"

And the cherry on the top? WHO DIDNT EXPECT HIM TO RETURN SOONER THAN LATER EXPLAINING HOW WE NO LONGER HAVE A REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT HIS WELL-BEING---HE WON IT ALL BACK AND MORE!!" YIPEE!!! Of course, we weren't treated to more talk of how great EV was in that blab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS__ how about the year I hit two $100K royals. Why would I post on a public forum that I had a profit from gambling? Is posting that you have a profit an advantage play?
LOL

---

I'm fairly sure you have proudly claimed on more than one occasion that you have never had a profitable year gambling.

---

That's right Axel. I have never had a profitable year gambling. And I have never claimed a profit in any year. You can ask my ex wives, their attorneys and it says so on all my tax returns. Never a profit. And darn it's so frustrating when the net loss is just one buck.

Are you saying that in at least one year you had a net loss of only one dollar?

One dollar, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The ongoing argument is probably insoluble.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) KJ bases his opitimism on the mathematics-based belief that his method of play will result in a positive expectation over time, i.e. in the long run; in fact at one point he implies that for him at least the long run could be reached in as quickly as thirty days.

Meanwhile alan is on record for pooh-poohing all notions which involve gauging the effectiveess of casino play by looking at results over the long run; he dismisses the relevance of such an analysis, claiming all play is only in the short run, where anything could happen.

Without alan accepting the truth of the fundamental premise of the EV being accurately determinable in the long run there can probably be no satisfactory conclusion to this debate.

---

The truth is the bottom line not some wishing and hoping as you bet.