Just persistent, Moses.
Printable View
Just persistent, Moses.
LMAO. Yes...you are.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It does increase the payoff on a wager if you’re sure they’re going to honor the rebate. Again, looking at it from a single bet standpoint, you put a million on the table, but you were never going to lose a million. You were only going to lose $800,000, so effectively, you’re betting a million to win a million, but you’re only risking $800,000 to win a million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Admittedly, this assumes they would definitely make good on the rebate.
Loss rebates take a bit of the sting out of losing bets. Big whoop. That's similar to all the hot-shot WoV "ap's" who claim they went to the Revel $100k freeplay loss rebate expecting to lose just so they could take advantage of it....except the few who were actually there (the "I went to Woodstock!" syndrome) got thrown out for ignoring the terms & conditions of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat's right. No dispute about that. But the point I was making and a point Rob made was that you still had to win your bets. Otherwise loss rebates only reduced your losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Now mickeycrimm who seems to always want the last word is saying about loss rebates:
"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."
Well that's only partially correct. Loss rebates do impact your losses but they do not impact the payoffs on wins. Now perhaps you have more money to bet because of loss rebates but that's not what mickeycrimm wrote.
The whole very clear point was, only an idiot goes into a casino to play expecting to lose. DJ doesn't do that and I don't do that. Rebates rarely turn a losing session into a winner. If DJ's betting 5 & 6 figures, the rebate would never be enuf to make him stop at a borderline result. It's his actual play results that matter and dictate his stopping point.
As for the idea that "going into" the session is "+EV" because of some rebate, that's ludicrous and irrelevant. If you don't have a good plan and strategy prior to beginning your play, all the indirect theoretical EV in the world means zippo if you aren't winning your bets. It's no different than the ap's who get all wet and bothered when they see some slot or VP progressive move into +EV territory. They might enjoy going after it, but if they are not the one to hit it, all those beautiful +EV phantom bucks will do them zero good at Von's tomorrow.
Or, you could do what every AP has always done on forums whenever they work up enuf courage to announce they just had a bad losing session: tell everybody that they went back the next day and won even more!....a surefire way to get racing, worried hearts back in line. And yes---even though they find the words difficult to spit out---what they're really saying is they were "due".
Alan....with a 100% $500 loss rebate on craps I bet $500. If there was no rebate, I bet $0-$10. So with the rebate, I win $500 if the bet wins with the rebate. I win at least 49x more with the rebate on a winning roll than without the rebate. Do you see how the rebate affects winning rolls, do you comprehend that English?
You mean like? I lost $1700 yesterday. I had the winning team. But the game was Suspended from the night before until the next morning. So to everyone else I broke even (got my money back). But to me, o hell no. I lost $1700 because I got $2200 back on a team that won and ticket worth $3952 if they did? A $1,752 technicality. Ironic, two other guys lost their money on the Mets. But at another sportsbook. Hmmm. I wonder how many would've just thrown away their losing ticket that was worth a refund.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I wish I could tell you I made it back. But I just wait until the next game fits. AP is not so much about winning but avoiding and overcoming getting ripped off. What a pisser! But I got my points.
Zeebabar is a real person, Moses. Hard to believe, I know. I know this because I have seen his entry and picture in O.S.N. Devastating entry, with a very clear picture, precisely because he is such an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses
I go against conventional wisdom when it comes to blackjack. For instance, the game is one lifelong session. I hate that statement. So what, at your funeral, someone stands and says, "well Jack spent most of his days sitting at a blackjack table and he almost made it back to being in the black"? Even the most dedicated player probably doesn't play a million hands in his/her lifetime. I have, but I wouldn't mind getting 1/2 of them back before I played it as a game of people with the use of cards.
C'mon man. I'm in control. I play when conditions are right or ripe. The session ends when conditions are no longer right or ripe. In other words, I choose when my ass hits leather and when my legs stroll away. I let the game come to me. Quite often, "just one more." And then I swat while others have already punched themselves out.
LOL. I would pay 5 bucks to see that picture. He's got to be a piece of work. Was his finger in his nose?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJZeebabar is a real person, Moses. Hard to believe, I know. I know this because I have seen his entry and picture in O.S.N. Devastating entry, with a very clear picture, precisely because he is such an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses
I'm not in error. You are. Go back and read post 146. This time try to comprehend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Perhaps I'm using different definitions than you? Wager = amount bet. Payoff = odds that the bet is paid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146It does increase the payoff on a wager if you’re sure they’re going to honor the rebate. Again, looking at it from a single bet standpoint, you put a million on the table, but you were never going to lose a million. You were only going to lose $800,000, so effectively, you’re betting a million to win a million, but you’re only risking $800,000 to win a million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Admittedly, this assumes they would definitely make good on the rebate.
What I was saying, for example, is that a blackjack wouldn't be paid at 6:2 instead of 3:2 because of a loss rebate.
Yes if you increased your bets because you had some rebated money you would win more but mickeycrimm specifically said "the same amount of total wager."
I'll make this easier, maybe, for you. Your free play is exactly what a loss rebate is.
More ignorant blather from the King of Ignorant Blather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerLoss rebates take a bit of the sting out of losing bets. Big whoop. That's similar to all the hot-shot WoV "ap's" who claim they went to the Revel $100k freeplay loss rebate expecting to lose just so they could take advantage of it....except the few who were actually there (the "I went to Woodstock!" syndrome) got thrown out for ignoring the terms & conditions of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat's right. No dispute about that. But the point I was making and a point Rob made was that you still had to win your bets. Otherwise loss rebates only reduced your losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Now mickeycrimm who seems to always want the last word is saying about loss rebates:
"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."
Well that's only partially correct. Loss rebates do impact your losses but they do not impact the payoffs on wins. Now perhaps you have more money to bet because of loss rebates but that's not what mickeycrimm wrote.
The whole very clear point was, only an idiot goes into a casino to play expecting to lose. DJ doesn't do that and I don't do that. Rebates rarely turn a losing session into a winner. If DJ's betting 5 & 6 figures, the rebate would never be enuf to make him stop at a borderline result. It's his actual play results that matter and dictate his stopping point.
As for the idea that "going into" the session is "+EV" because of some rebate, that's ludicrous and irrelevant. If you don't have a good plan and strategy prior to beginning your play, all the indirect theoretical EV in the world means zippo if you aren't winning your bets. It's no different than the ap's who get all wet and bothered when they see some slot or VP progressive move into +EV territory. They might enjoy going after it, but if they are not the one to hit it, all those beautiful +EV phantom bucks will do them zero good at Von's tomorrow.
Or, you could do what every AP has always done on forums whenever they work up enuf courage to announce they just had a bad losing session: tell everybody that they went back the next day and won even more!....a surefire way to get racing, worried hearts back in line. And yes---even though they find the words difficult to spit out---what they're really saying is they were "due".
Classic. LMAO.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
There are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
There have been, and there will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThere are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Alan, for a 20% loss rebate example, let's use 99.17% bonus poker, which, except for the two or three major mistakes you make every 40 hands or so, you play perfectly. Thus, with no loss rebate (and without your players club card inserted), you can expect to lose at least 83 cents for every 100 dollars you play through on this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThere are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Now there are two outcomes for each deal-draw resolution (let's be generous and assume you never make mistakes):
1) You win or break even with probability 45.51%
2) You lose, with probability 54.49%
As stated above, with no loss rebate, this is a losing game (83 cents per $100 coin-in):
Expected_Value=ExpectedValue_of_nonlosinghands +(Probability of loss)*(amount lost)=$53.65-$54.49=-$0.83
Under the conditions of a 20% loss rebate let's see what the loss is per $100 coin-in:
Expected_Value=ExpectedValue_of_nonlosinghands +(Probability of loss)*(amount lost)*.80=$53.65-$43.59=$10.06
Wow, what a difference Alan ?! With no loss rebate, you lose 83 cents per 100 dollars wagered and with a 20% loss rebate you
win $10.06 for that same 100 dollars wagered! This assumes, of course, that you make no errors and that you play 99.17%
Bonus Poker exclusively, and that each loss is reimbursed 20%.
Hi tableplay.
Believe me, I’m on your side, but this analysis is overly simplistic and does not account for the fact that VP is not a win/lose game. Not every winning hand pays the same. Do you ever play video poker?
Alan doesn’t understand your math anyway, but please try again.
BUMPQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Alan, per the above:
Scenario A. You make 100 bets of $100 each on black with a 20% loss rebate on each bet.
Scenario B. You make 100 bets of $100 each on black with no loss rebates.
In scenario A you have an expectation of a $527 profit.
In scenario B you have an expectation of a $527 loss.
In both scenarios you make the exact same total wager, $10,000 (100X100). For the exact same total wager you have an expected profit in scenario A but an expected loss in scenario B.
This is what I meant by "same amount of total wager." Alan, you never answered my question either. Which scenario would you prefer, A or B?
Thanks Mickey. Red/Black is different from VP.
But Alan doesn’t play roulette LOL
He hasn’t answered because he doesn’t understand the difference. Remember he thinks rebates have no value.
Does this comment refer to me? When did I say rebates have no value? Why do you lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
Rebates definitely have a value. They keep you playing longer when your bets lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDoes this comment refer to me? When did I say rebates have no value? Why do you lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
Rebates definitely have a value. They keep you playing longer when your bets lose.
You truly are the dumbest fuck that ever lived. It’s mind-boggling.
Alan is the quintessential casino consumer. God love him. All hail, one of the many pensioners bestowing riches into the coffers of their local casino. Without Alan's, AP would not be possible. Personally, I am thankful for Alan and any like him.
*Disclaimer-
Alan is still a Tard
Here is what Alan has to say about loss rebates he added this "article" to his Bestbuy website. I can see why Alan (one of the worst video poker players I have seen aside from blind people) dosnt understand the value of a loss rebate.
Alan M.
ARE CASINO LOSS REBATES AN ADVANTAGE PLAY?
Update July 14, 2017 Sometimes a casino will offer a rebate on losses to sign-up new players for its loyalty program or players club. The rebate on losses could be small -- perhaps just $20 in the case of some bars in Vegas that have slot machines -- or they could be as large as $500 or $1000 at some of the Vegas Strip casinos. Should you make use of these rebates, and play with a loss rebate in mind? It depends.
The first thing to consider are the terms of the loss rebate. Is the rebate available on the games you play or are they limited to games you don't play? If you play video poker but video poker is excluded from the loss rebate promotion do you want to play slots just for a loss rebate?
How is the rebate paid? This is probably the most important factor. Is the rebate paid in cash -- as in a true rebate on your loss? Or, is the rebate paid in free-play which means you have to run the "free play" through the machines again trying your luck. Free play could hit big -- or it could lose, you just don't know.
In the case of free play, do you get it immediately or do you have to return to the casino a week later? If you are from out of town and visiting Vegas for three days, and the free play rebate won't be given to you till a week later, what good is it?
And is the free-play rebate payable to you in one installment or two? Are the installments a week apart? If they are paid a week apart it would take two additional trips to the casino over two weeks to claim the free play.
The most important point to remember about loss rebates is that you have to lose money to get them. And, once you lose the money, what do you think your chances are that you'll win the money back using the free play?
If you lose $1,000 and are given $500 of free play over the next two visits how will use the free play and what are the chances of winning back the original $1,000 you lost?
What is the cost of returning to the casino? Do you pay for valet parking? Is it a casino you actually will return to and want to return to? Is the free play usable on the games you want to play?
Casino loss rebates can be attractive but they involve certain costs and risks. Consider them carefully. Personally, I don't want to lose $500 or $1,000 with the hope that I will recover that money later with free play over the next week or two.
Yes, Alan, you really are dumber than a rock. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt but no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 Yos LOLZQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDoes this comment refer to me? When did I say rebates have no value? Why do you lie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
Rebates definitely have a value. They keep you playing longer when your bets lose.
You truly are the dumbest fuck that ever lived. It’s mind-boggling.
You have argued for years that rebates have no value.
Now it sounds like you are trying to say they somehow have negative value.
I truly have no further interest in talking to a brick wall.
Absolute bullshit. Post one link you liar, dipshitone.
Look at the link Axel posted. Especially the last paragraph.
Thank you for posting Axel. I forgot all about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Dipshitone, where does it say rebates have no value?
The analysis is accurate and takes this into account - The 1st term of the equation is the expected value (weighted average) of all the non-losing outcomes as shown in the attached screenshot and has a value of $53.65. The only other term in the expected value equation is the value for the losing outcome which is -$54.49 (no loss rebate value).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
Which is to say $53.65=ExpectedValue_of_nonlosinghands=p(NRF)*NRF_ win_for_$100bet + p(strflush)*strFlush_win_for_$100bet + p(4Aces)*4Aces_win_for_$100bet + p(four23or4s)*four23or4s_win_for_$100bet + p(four5thruKings)*four5thrukings_win_for_$100bet + p(fullhouse)*fullhouse_win_for_$100bet + p(flush)*flush_win_for_$100bet + p(straight)*straight_win_for_$100bet + p(threeofakind)*threeofakind_win_for_$100bet + p(twopair)*twopair_win_for_$100bet + p(jacksorbetter)*jacksorbetter_win_for_$100bet . If you still don't believe me, you can plug in the spreadsheet values shown in the screen shot or derive the values and equation yourself to see that I am factoring in all of the possible outcomes in the paytable when coming up with the loss rebate value. I figured it would be easier just to give the end result of the non-losing hands since they are unaffected by the loss rebate. Anyhow I think you also asked me if I had ever played video poker before and the answer is yes.
I didn't say, you said it had no value. From the tone of that piece of crap "article," it seems as if you put very little value on loss rebates. IMO you should NOT be writing articles about gaming since you are still very ignorant when it comes to gambling after all these years. You do a disservice to newbs, especially since that comes up 6th when you do a google search for casino loss rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThank you for posting Axel. I forgot all about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Dipshitone, where does it say rebates have no value?
Obviously I have some credibility with Google. Thanks again Axel. But I think my advice about what to consider with loss rebates is fair.
You certainly do...I googled “Biggest deadbeat morons walking the planet Earth”, and your name popped right upQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Per the article, Alan doesn't want to "lose $500 or $1000 with the hope that I will recover it with freeplay over the next week or two." But he has no problem losing $500 or $1000 with nothing working to recover any of it.
Interesting choice of words. "Fair." Fair to whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your article has no mention of the mathematical consequences of using rebates versus not using rebates. The article is not accurate or honest mathematically. The article makes no mention of what occurs when someone plays and wins, whether that win is a timed event or based on hitting a jackpot. There is no mention of those outcomes. There is no mathematical analysis of the odds of finishing ahead either through timing, jackpot win, or winning via free play. Not even a discussion of the possibility, much less percentage models.
So, in terms of being "just, open-minded, equitable, honest," the article is definitely not "fair." Unless you consider the quality of the article -- a C-minus or D plus. Then the article would, I suppose, make the grade of "fair."
Search Engine Optimization and knowing what the fuck you are talking are not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The only parts of that article which are good are the points you made about when will you get the rebate and in how many installments.
Alan, it is a know fact that if someone tells a lie often enough, it gains traction. Sadly, in your quest to remain relevant, this is your entire existence. Google numbers have to do with volume, how often people are looking up and reading your mis-truths and mis-information. It has nothing to do with credibility, because you have no credibility with anyone, in the gambling community that has half a brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Almost any gambling advise or point that you make is wrong and in that sense, VERY unfair to newer players seeking legitimate information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan isn't today "payday" for you being that the 1st and 3rd fall on a weekend and holiday? Time to hit the casinos isn't it? Beeline to Red Rock. Maybe you can lose all your September money and be broke before Sept 1 even hits. :( Slappy, better run right over to Alans and get anything you are hoping to get in terms of money owed you. :rolleyes:
Did I say that mickeymouse?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
IIRC Zee asked quite a while ago about OSN on bjtf and I'm pretty sure he knows he is in there. The very interesting thing is that it has not stopped him from continuing to play and win if you believe his posts which I do. Nobody could invent the nonsense he comes up with. Probably he's allowed to continue playing because he's a small fry and probably it's been realized that he's not much of a threat. If he ever tried to up his max bet to $300 or more and began playing very efficiently I would surmise that he'd be 86ed very quickly in many places.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Redietz does every article require mathematical analysis?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzInteresting choice of words. "Fair." Fair to whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your article has no mention of the mathematical consequences of using rebates versus not using rebates. The article is not accurate or honest mathematically. The article makes no mention of what occurs when someone plays and wins, whether that win is a timed event or based on hitting a jackpot. There is no mention of those outcomes. There is no mathematical analysis of the odds of finishing ahead either through timing, jackpot win, or winning via free play. Not even a discussion of the possibility, much less percentage models.
So, in terms of being "just, open-minded, equitable, honest," the article is definitely not "fair." Unless you consider the quality of the article -- a C-minus or D plus. Then the article would, I suppose, make the grade of "fair."
By the way, I did a Google search for you and your famous sports betting accomplishments, articles, wins, etc and nothing came up under R E Dietz. What search terms should I be using?
Making a decision on one number and a deck estimate doesn't seem like sound judgement to me. However, there are some lost sole's that continue to kick that can on other blackjack forums. There are also some very savvy players. You take the good with the bad. But it's mostly bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonRedietz does every article require mathematical analysis?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzInteresting choice of words. "Fair." Fair to whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your article has no mention of the mathematical consequences of using rebates versus not using rebates. The article is not accurate or honest mathematically. The article makes no mention of what occurs when someone plays and wins, whether that win is a timed event or based on hitting a jackpot. There is no mention of those outcomes. There is no mathematical analysis of the odds of finishing ahead either through timing, jackpot win, or winning via free play. Not even a discussion of the possibility, much less percentage models.
So, in terms of being "just, open-minded, equitable, honest," the article is definitely not "fair." Unless you consider the quality of the article -- a C-minus or D plus. Then the article would, I suppose, make the grade of "fair."
By the way, I did a Google search for you and your famous sports betting accomplishments, articles, wins, etc and nothing came up under R E Dietz. What search terms should I be using?
Search terms on Google? You seem to have conflated "expertise" with "fame." Happens all the time without a Merriam Webster on the desk. I'm hoping I don't show up on Google at all.
I notified Zee that he was in OSN the same day I saw his entry. I even sent him a copy of his entry that contained very clear pictures of his face taken at the cage, along with his vehicle including license plate number. It was a very devastating entry. I notified him because I wanted him to know how careless he had been in hopes that he might "tighten up' some of his procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeIIRC Zee asked quite a while ago about OSN on bjtf and I'm pretty sure he knows he is in there. The very interesting thing is that it has not stopped him from continuing to play and win if you believe his posts which I do. Nobody could invent the nonsense he comes up with. Probably he's allowed to continue playing because he's a small fry and probably it's been realized that he's not much of a threat. If he ever tried to up his max bet to $300 or more and began playing very efficiently I would surmise that he'd be 86ed very quickly in many places.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
The fact that he has continued to play most places without too much incident is interesting. Zee reads that as an entry in OSN is no big deal. I read it a little differently. :rolleyes:
Many casinos and casino personnel make a call on individual players based on whether or not they perceive them to be a threat and/or just how much of a threat and they often allow counter that they have perceived to be minimal threat to continue to play until they decide otherwise. I think that is what has occurred here. Zee uses a very small bet spread and frequently hesitates on even putting out his top bets. This combines with playing lower limit stakes probably has many determining that his is no or minimal threat....at this point.
In addition, there are casinos that are notoriously over paranoid and sweaty and are frequent contributors to the databases based on that over paranoia. Once that reputation is established, other casinos and casino personnel sometimes tend to not put all that much stock in such an entry. I don't play where Zee plays so I don't know if that is the case with this entry or not. One such place that I have played on frequent trips that falls in this category is Valley Forge. They are such a frequent contributor, reporting every counter, even those probably playing a losing game or very small stakes, that many casinos and casino personnel just don't take them all that seriously. In Las Vegas, Cosmo (and a couple others) falls in this category. Sort of the boy who cried wolf scenario. An entry by one of these casinos loses some credibility and might not be takes so seriously and/or be so devastating.
I think that is what has happened to Zee. Some of his regular casinos have just determined that he isn't that much of a threat....right now. But if he is winning as he says he is, that evaluation will change and when it does....boom...they already have everything they need to make his ability to continue playing much more difficult than need be.
So regardless that he has continued playing with no or minor consequences, such an entry that he received is "bad news". It is like the guy that falls from the top floor of a construction site. As he is falling a co-workers yells out "how are you doing" to which he replies "so far, so good". Problem is that it is likely to end badly. :rolleyes:
Nice post KJ. Some of these guys post as if they must be playing the game with their heads waaaay up their ass. The advisors then sound smart because their head is only in their ass. I like you're analogy "so far, so good." ;)
Alan, if you're looking for anything at all about the self-proclaimed illustrious sports gambling exploits of R.E.Dietz, forget about it. As everyone who's tried will attest, nothing exists. That's why he keeps claiming his accolades come from 20, 30, even 40 years ago, and why he wouldn't copy/scan any of his silly PR Pkg. He was hoping to dupe us all with it thru you, so he could then begin soliciting more than just me to send him money for his "sure thing lock" plays-of-the-week. But you foiled him, which is why he trolls you so often.
He's a sleaze bag with no equal.
This gets old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
In 40 years, I have never called anything a lock or sure thing, obviously. Argentino puts it in quotation marks, which signifies not that he's directly quoting me, but that he's just using his own interpretation. It's a fine writing trick designed to make readers think he's actually quoting me. He's not.
I guess I have plays most weeks. Not sure if they would be "plays of the week." I guess if a play is that week, then it's a play of that week. I have plays of the day, too, I suppose, if they occur that day. And plays of the millennium. I'm not sure if we're still in the Cenozoic Era, because I'd like to have some Cenozoic games, too. In fact, I'm going to use that. Games of the Cenozoic Era. I like it.
I never solicited Argentino. In fact, I don't solicit anybody.
Some of the material from the PR package has been posted in the Retro Road Trip thread. Maybe Argentino has been banned from that thread, so he cannot read it. I don't know. I offered to provide in-person all materials to Argentino. He hasn't gotten back to me on when he wants me to drop them off.
And on and on.
One forum member has a collection of McCusker's "Tipsters or Gypsters?" A forum member also received a copy of the National Conference paper via interlibrary loan from UNLV. See what a little legwork provides?
And on and on.
And on and on with your corny long and rambling diversions and denials, still with no actual explanations of anything pertinent.
More despicable by the minute.
What is despicable is your continuous gratuitous attacks. But then everyone knows what a despicable person YOU are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
40 years on the inside track of sports betting and you never got wind of a fixed game or a lock??
I find that hard to believe... I think you just don't want to admit it or post that information publicly.
Argentino is referring to the habit of touts commonly labeling games as "locks" so as to charge more for a particular game or to hype the thing. He's not talking about a "fixed" game.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I would never say that games aren't occasionally orchestrated -- that kind of proclamation is absurd, really. It suggests that nobody involved has motive, means, and opportunity, which is a proclamation.
"Fixed" is too definitive a word to have any real-world value. Even if you pay a couple of basketball starters to "fix" a game, there's no guarantee that the game gets there (and the "fixing" would probably not involve the kinds of plays you think). That's why the term "orchestrated" is more useful when discussing this kind of thing. You can have a great conductor, but that doesn't mean the orchestra sounds the way it should.