DJ was playing with an over 10% edge WITHOUT the rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Printable View
DJ was playing with an over 10% edge WITHOUT the rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
According to this interview Don Johnson did not have that 10% edge. What is your source?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbDJ was playing with an over 10% edge WITHOUT the rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Here's Don Johnson's interview.
https://youtu.be/aHrkS_qbZLY
And there's more in an article in Blackjack Apprenticeship. You can Google it. I tried to copy the link but I can't. .
My source is none of your business!
That's a great cop out.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
https://www.888casino.com/blog/burni...of-don-johnson
"In fact, things got hopping enough that the pit-boss failed to recognize Johnson card-counting, the guy next to him catching glimpses of the dealer’s hole cards and another collaborator sequencing the deck, telling Johnson when strong cards would be coming his way."
Just treat it like a daily or weekly loss rebate and make one monster bet and it would basically the same. Are there restrictions on what kind of sports bets you can make?do you have to roll the FP over more than once? Do you get a rebate when you make bets with the free play?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI was going to mention the online rebates since I have seen some that were up to $1,500 for 200%. I didn't want to get into the whole online debate about getting paid, fairness and whatnot. One must do their research and tests and know what they are doing when it comes to online playing and then figure out the risk vs the reward long term for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm strictly betting sports, and I was happy to have found an offshore that'll give me a 25% loss rebate every six months (it's actually 12.5% because the rebate comes as free play).
If I found somewhere willing to rebate me every week or every month, I'd bet my brains out on every sport even if I didn't know what I was doing.
Is this offer just for a select few or is it open to others if you fit the criteria? Have you been losing at this particular place? What size bets have you been making?
Axel, you sound like coach!? The info I consider proprietary, so it stays with me, but I'll answer some questions. I would not do the single monster wager thing -- it kind of defeats the purpose -- unless I had the proper opportunity, like hedge against a long shot future bet elsewhere. And if that opportunity presents itself, that's exactly how I try to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfJust treat it like a daily or weekly loss rebate and make one monster bet and it would basically the same. Are there restrictions on what kind of sports bets you can make?do you have to roll the FP over more than once? Do you get a rebate when you make bets with the free play?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I'm strictly betting sports, and I was happy to have found an offshore that'll give me a 25% loss rebate every six months (it's actually 12.5% because the rebate comes as free play).
If I found somewhere willing to rebate me every week or every month, I'd bet my brains out on every sport even if I didn't know what I was doing.
Is this offer just for a select few or is it open to others if you fit the criteria? Have you been losing at this particular place? What size bets have you been making?
I think the rebate has a four-time rollover. Since I'm very rarely doing the giant single wager thing, that doesn't even concern me. I don't concern myself much with any rollovers, to be honest. Lifetime at that site, I'm ahead, but not some huge amount. I know they are treating me with kid gloves because one of my guys had a separate account there. He used some of our plays, but he also did a lot of experimental stuff on his own with baseball, and they took him off every promo and rebate. He got upset and closed his account. But they kept me on and eligible, probably because they know me. I run into that quite a bit. It's almost impossible for me to hide, the way I bet things, so I depend on the largesse, curiosity, and piggybacking of books to tolerate me. Now if you ask why it's impossible to hide, well, I'm not gonna spell it out precisely, but in general, specialists can't hide.
No rebate on the free play bets (boy, that would be cool, didn't even think of that). And there are restrictions on the free play use. Must be straight plays and they have a moneyline bracket limit, which I don't know off the top of my head. It's probably the usual free play limit -- like no more than +140 or something.
Sorry, I was not trying to sound like Coach and I'm not trying to figure out what casino or anything like that. I think coach and others may have jaded you a little without you even knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzAxel, you sound like coach!? The info I consider proprietary, so it stays with me, but I'll answer some questions. I would not do the single monster wager thing -- it kind of defeats the purpose -- unless I had the proper opportunity, like hedge against a long shot future bet elsewhere. And if that opportunity presents itself, that's exactly how I try to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfJust treat it like a daily or weekly loss rebate and make one monster bet and it would basically the same. Are there restrictions on what kind of sports bets you can make?do you have to roll the FP over more than once? Do you get a rebate when you make bets with the free play?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Is this offer just for a select few or is it open to others if you fit the criteria? Have you been losing at this particular place? What size bets have you been making?
I think the rebate has a four-time rollover. Since I'm very rarely doing the giant single wager thing, that doesn't even concern me. I don't concern myself much with any rollovers, to be honest. Lifetime at that site, I'm ahead, but not some huge amount. I know they are treating me with kid gloves because one of my guys had a separate account there. He used some of our plays, but he also did a lot of experimental stuff on his own with baseball, and they took him off every promo and rebate. He got upset and closed his account. But they kept me on and eligible, probably because they know me. I run into that quite a bit. It's almost impossible for me to hide, the way I bet things, so I depend on the largesse, curiosity, and piggybacking of books to tolerate me. Now if you ask why it's impossible to hide, well, I'm not gonna spell it out precisely, but in general, specialists can't hide.
No rebate on the free play bets (boy, that would be cool, didn't even think of that). And there are restrictions on the free play use. Must be straight plays and they have a moneyline bracket limit, which I don't know off the top of my head. It's probably the usual free play limit -- like no more than +140 or something.
I was trying to figure out what the EV might be and the best way to go about betting it for max value and take advantage of the situation to its full potential. it seems like they won't let you take long shots on the Freeplay wagering, so that thought is out.
oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
Personally, I would try to recreate a situation where I could have multiple accounts with the same deal and just keep playing my account as I have been, but then go off in different directions and experiment with the other accounts, but make it less obvious as your guy did.
Oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing at this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
If they also have other casino games, I would research the rules and see of there's something you could do with that in regards to the rolling over and it may even help with your longevity. Get them to think...He is a winning sports bettor, but he plays slots and stuff so we have a chance to get it back, meanwhile, you have a+EV situation.
On one occasion during his spree he found a game he could hole-card.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbDJ was playing with an over 10% edge WITHOUT the rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
See my analysis here, in my response to this article:
"Examining a Gambler’s Claims: Probabilistic Fact-Checking and Don Johnson’s Extraordinary Blackjack Winning Streak | CHANCE" https://chance.amstat.org/2014/02/blackjack-27-1/
We've played those same dealers.
For BoSox and others who may be concerned:
Pittsburgh Penguins Puck Line -105
Washington Capitals Puck Line +175
Parlay them to get about 4 to 4.5 to 1 on your money
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSorry, I was not trying to sound like Coach and I'm not trying to figure out what casino or anything like that. I think coach and others may have jaded you a little without you even knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzAxel, you sound like coach!? The info I consider proprietary, so it stays with me, but I'll answer some questions. I would not do the single monster wager thing -- it kind of defeats the purpose -- unless I had the proper opportunity, like hedge against a long shot future bet elsewhere. And if that opportunity presents itself, that's exactly how I try to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I think the rebate has a four-time rollover. Since I'm very rarely doing the giant single wager thing, that doesn't even concern me. I don't concern myself much with any rollovers, to be honest. Lifetime at that site, I'm ahead, but not some huge amount. I know they are treating me with kid gloves because one of my guys had a separate account there. He used some of our plays, but he also did a lot of experimental stuff on his own with baseball, and they took him off every promo and rebate. He got upset and closed his account. But they kept me on and eligible, probably because they know me. I run into that quite a bit. It's almost impossible for me to hide, the way I bet things, so I depend on the largesse, curiosity, and piggybacking of books to tolerate me. Now if you ask why it's impossible to hide, well, I'm not gonna spell it out precisely, but in general, specialists can't hide.
No rebate on the free play bets (boy, that would be cool, didn't even think of that). And there are restrictions on the free play use. Must be straight plays and they have a moneyline bracket limit, which I don't know off the top of my head. It's probably the usual free play limit -- like no more than +140 or something.
I was trying to figure out what the EV might be and the best way to go about betting it for max value and take advantage of the situation to its full potential. it seems like they won't let you take long shots on the Freeplay wagering, so that thought is out.
oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
Personally, I would try to recreate a situation where I could have multiple accounts with the same deal and just keep playing my account as I have been, but then go off in different directions and experiment with the other accounts, but make it less obvious as your guy did.
Oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing at this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
If they also have other casino games, I would research the rules and see of there's something you could do with that in regards to the rolling over and it may even help with your longevity. Get them to think...He is a winning sports bettor, but he plays slots and stuff so we have a chance to get it back, meanwhile, you have a+EV situation.
Jaded? Moi? LOL. Show me an unjaded professional gambler, and I'll show you a headstone on Boot Hill.
I don't play every angle for max gain with offshores. No multiple accounts. Long term, my actual betting profile is almost unmistakable, so I'd just be fooling some of the people some of the time and cutting my own throat long term. I'm not trying to max out my income this month or this season or this year. There are times that I've caught a bad (as in somebody made an error) future number offshore, and while I exploit it some I never do that anywhere near the posted limit. I'm not out to get somebody fired or screamed at offshore. Everything is a negotiation.
Some of the offshores (not all) look at winning players and try to figure them out, data mine them, or just simply piggyback them. I had one boutique offshore ban me (I was not "their kind of player" -- only explanation), then reverse course a year later and apologize and ask me to come back. No secret -- they try to data mine or piggyback. I had another that comically would not outright ban me, but limited me to $1.29 or something as my futures limit on a golf tournament.
Now in Las Vegas, of course, things are different. Eviscerating is allowed. Occasionally we do things just to poke fun at people and embarrass management a little. In LV, I don't care if I get banned or arrested or anything -- if Las Vegas gets nuked tomorrow, oh well. And some of my LV comp stories -- well, I have hard time believing I had the nerve to pull them off back in my youth.
I got greedy and made it a 3 team parlay with the Rangers Puck Line.
Empty Netters were all the rage and both the Capitals and the Rangers won 6-3.
Now I have to sweat the Buffalo/Penguin game and hope the Pens can win by 2 goals or more.
800 to win 6700 and some change.
Let's Go Pens!?
I was just saying that with a 25% loss rebate you could afford to change your betting profile and switch it up on other accounts and have an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSorry, I was not trying to sound like Coach and I'm not trying to figure out what casino or anything like that. I think coach and others may have jaded you a little without you even knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I was trying to figure out what the EV might be and the best way to go about betting it for max value and take advantage of the situation to its full potential. it seems like they won't let you take long shots on the Freeplay wagering, so that thought is out.
oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
Personally, I would try to recreate a situation where I could have multiple accounts with the same deal and just keep playing my account as I have been, but then go off in different directions and experiment with the other accounts, but make it less obvious as your guy did.
Oftentimes they cut off long-term winning players online, not keep giving them loss rebates, so I thought perhaps on this particular account you were losing at this place but winning at other joints and thus the generous offers.
If they also have other casino games, I would research the rules and see of there's something you could do with that in regards to the rolling over and it may even help with your longevity. Get them to think...He is a winning sports bettor, but he plays slots and stuff so we have a chance to get it back, meanwhile, you have a+EV situation.
Jaded? Moi? LOL. Show me an unjaded professional gambler, and I'll show you a headstone on Boot Hill.
I don't play every angle for max gain with offshores. No multiple accounts. Long term, my actual betting profile is almost unmistakable, so I'd just be fooling some of the people some of the time and cutting my own throat long term. I'm not trying to max out my income this month or this season or this year. There are times that I've caught a bad (as in somebody made an error) future number offshore, and while I exploit it some I never do that anywhere near the posted limit. I'm not out to get somebody fired or screamed at offshore. Everything is a negotiation.
Some of the offshores (not all) look at winning players and try to figure them out, data mine them, or just simply piggyback them. I had one boutique offshore ban me (I was not "their kind of player" -- only explanation), then reverse course a year later and apologize and ask me to come back. No secret -- they try to data mine or piggyback. I had another that comically would not outright ban me, but limited me to $1.29 or something as my futures limit on a golf tournament.
Now in Las Vegas, of course, things are different. Eviscerating is allowed. Occasionally we do things just to poke fun at people and embarrass management a little. In LV, I don't care if I get banned or arrested or anything -- if Las Vegas gets nuked tomorrow, oh well. And some of my LV comp stories -- well, I have hard time believing I had the nerve to pull them off back in my youth.
What are you dancing with this shithead ditz, and tip-toeing around the elephant in the room?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Coach, have you asked MDawg what he did with the 180 million dollars in bitcoin? Seems like a lot of bitcoin to misplace, forget about, or lose. I guess easy come, easy go. But it would be cool to know what he did with it. Maybe he owns a floor at the Wynn, like Howard Hughes.
Note: For the next week, every time coach posts, I will ask him, nicely of course, if he knows what MDawg did with the 180 million from the bitcoin. Let's see how creative coach gets. I know he loves questions.
So I was just catching up with my reading over at WoV, the forum that Mdawg now completely controls. :(
And I see that darkoz was inquiring as to whether this challenge has occurred?? Mind, you, the challenge that he is funding and paying for. :confused:
Does anyone else see a problem with how this is being conducted, in complete secrecy like this. That is exactly how collusion occurs.
I am expecting some kind of conclusion that is very vague, not harmful in any way towards Mdawg's claims, which WoV benefits by with the traffic. This has become sort of like hoping to see a fair trial in Russia or China.
That's quite the game plan...but what's the point if you got no game?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Is Darwinism just a theory?
Coach, did MDawg tell you what he did with the 180 million in bitcoin? If he tells you, and you tell us, I'm in the fan club. Looking forward to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThat's quite the game plan...but what's the point if you got no game?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Is Darwinism just a theory?
Yes, and while you're at it ask him how he's getting any legal work done when by his reports he spends all his time fucking off in the casinos and writing pulp fiction about it for these boards.
Guy's a walking, talking legal malpractice case ... if he's telling the truth.
Bwa ha ha ha.
I have no clue what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat are you dancing with this shithead ditz, and tip-toeing around the elephant in the room?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Wake up hayseed...get your boy on the case...you've been on the case for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI have no clue what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWhat are you dancing with this shithead ditz, and tip-toeing around the elephant in the room?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWake up hayseed...get your boy on the case...you've been on the case for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI have no clue what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Coach, have you asked MDawg about the 180 million in bitcoin? What did he do with it? Do you know? If you don't, why don't you know? Shouldn't you ask him?
I checked coach's posting history. He loves questions. Consider this an homage. Plus I get in the fan club.
What's on trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is such a nothing event that the only one who cares is probably DarkOz. The only thing that happens as a result is Mdog wins again, Wizard gets paid, and DarkOx achieves chumpdom.
I don't even understand the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Mike gets 500 dollars just to show up right?
What happens to the other 2000 dollars?
Is that used for a wager?
Not that it matters as I am not following but I read your posts so I get a little curious.
Is DarkOz going to get scammed for 2500 dollars?
Is that what is going on here?
Feels like it.
Mike and MDawg in cahoots?
Scamming the most feared AP on the East Coast through the interwebs and WoV!?
That would be classic!
Reminds me of Matchstick Men (2003) when he tells her she didn't take his money... he gave it to her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4tGQnpJMqs
DrakOz is basically a willing rube who's donating 2500$ to two undeserving bozos for the main purpose of his usual attention seeking and acting like a big shot. COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY PROVES NOTHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI don't even understand the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Mike gets 500 dollars just to show up right?
What happens to the other 2000 dollars?
Is that used for a wager?
Not that it matters as I am not following but I read your posts so I get a little curious.
Is DarkOz going to get scammed for 2500 dollars?
Is that what is going on here?
Feels like it.
Mike and MDawg in cahoots?
Scamming the most feared AP on the East Coast through the interwebs and WoV!?
That would be classic!
Reminds me of Matchstick Men (2003) when he tells her she didn't take his money... he gave it to her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4tGQnpJMqs
I wonder if DarkOz took the simplest of precautions, like requiring that the results from the FIRST SINGLE session be the subject of reporting as opposed to a series of sessions (taking place on a single day or over days) which MDAwg and Shackleford could mutually agree to report one of WHICHEVER THEY CHOSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenWhat's on trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is such a nothing event that the only one who cares is probably DarkOz. The only thing that happens as a result is Mdog wins again, Wizard gets paid, and DarkOx achieves chumpdom.
If DarkOz didn't write this into the deal, then the entire enterprise is a complete scam.
Anybody privy to the details of the reporting deal?
You forget, Darkoz didn't write the "deal". Expectedvalue wrote the terms. darkoz just stepped in at the last minute and put up the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So the original deal went something like this: Shackleford is paid $500 for his time in witnessing a session of play. Mdawg is paid $1000. And if Mdawg's session is a winning session, he is paid an extra $1000.
So here in lies the problem. You cannot have a situation like that where only 2 people are involved. That invites collusion. For example what if Shackleford and Mdawg agree to report a winning session and split that final $1000. I mean you would hope Shackleford was above that, but the way he jumped at the first $500, makes me wonder. That is why there should have been 2 or 3 witnesses. AND it is why there should have been no money tied to the outcome. Pay each party for their time regardless of winning or losing session, and you have all but eliminated the likelihood of collusion.
So interesting reading over at Wizard of Voodoo, where Mdawg has assumed complete control. Mdawg and his sock puppets are having a conversation among themselves. :D It is seriously like watching a mental patient sitting in the corner conversing with himself. (or unfortunately on the street corner here in Vegas).
It is stunning to see what direction Shackleford has allowed that forum to go, straight to voodooism and bullshit. I mean the forum still bears his name. You would think he would care a little.
As an AP I deal with trust issues all dayQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou forget, Darkoz didn't write the "deal". Expectedvalue wrote the terms. darkoz just stepped in at the last minute and put up the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So the original deal went something like this: Shackleford is paid $500 for his time in witnessing a session of play. Mdawg is paid $1000. And if Mdawg's session is a winning session, he is paid an extra $1000.
So here in lies the problem. You cannot have a situation like that where only 2 people are involved. That invites collusion. For example what if Shackleford and Mdawg agree to report a winning session and split that final $1000. I mean you would hope Shackleford was above that, but the way he jumped at the first $500, makes me wonder. That is why there should have been 2 or 3 witnesses. AND it is why there should have been no money tied to the outcome. Pay each party for their time regardless of winning or losing session, and you have all but eliminated the likelihood of collusion.
My own team members could be misrepresenting the money they win. Or they could be honest (dishonesty has occurred and usually I figure it out and fire the person)
I trust the Wizard. I don't trust MDawg but he isn't holding my money.
Is Wizard and MDawg about to collude? For a one time $500 apiece advantage? The Wizard has more to lose imo if detected than the $500 would be worth it but hey the world works in mysterious ways.
I suggest waiting for the enterprise (entertainment) to finish and see what the outcome is before casting aspersions
I hate to bring in what seem to be legalistic details, but there is a world of difference between "witnessing a session" and "witnessing the first session at such and such a time." The first leaves open the door to witnessing multiple sessions and choosing one of them as the "a session." It doesn't specifically preclude that the witness saw multiple sessions but did not report on them. "Witnessing the first session at a specific time" pins things down.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou forget, Darkoz didn't write the "deal". Expectedvalue wrote the terms. darkoz just stepped in at the last minute and put up the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So the original deal went something like this: Shackleford is paid $500 for his time in witnessing a session of play. Mdawg is paid $1000. And if Mdawg's session is a winning session, he is paid an extra $1000.
So here in lies the problem. You cannot have a situation like that where only 2 people are involved. That invites collusion. For example what if Shackleford and Mdawg agree to report a winning session and split that final $1000. I mean you would hope Shackleford was above that, but the way he jumped at the first $500, makes me wonder. That is why there should have been 2 or 3 witnesses. AND it is why there should have been no money tied to the outcome. Pay each party for their time regardless of winning or losing session, and you have all but eliminated the likelihood of collusion.
You almost have to have an adversarial legalese process where one witness is neutral or advocates for a win while another witness advocates for a loss.
This stuff crops up in paranormal investigations often. The paranormal claimant usually tries to evade specific witnesses by arguing that "negativity" carried by the unfavorable witness or witnesses will prevent the claimant from succeeding.
I think that some of the cheerleaders/puppets at WoV are laying the groundwork for the witness-negativity-affects-outcome claims. Hopefully, my mentioning this here will prevent them from mustering it up down the road.
For anyone interested in the difficulties pinning down in-the-field displays of the paranormal, which is what "reading the cards to win" is, I suggest researching the "James Randi Million Dollar Challenge."
I still cannot fathom why you people don't put people like MD on ignore and not even waste time on him and his ilk. We hear enough of these same bullshit stories all day in the casinos that there is NO REASON to subject yourselves to them here.
Actually, the better time to cast aspersions would be before the outcome if you believe the process is flawed. But whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkoz
I want to trust Wizard. But it becomes harder and harder. In recent weeks the bias towards Mdawg has become very obvious. Since Mike has to know the claims are bullshit, one can only assume it is about forum traffic. Bullshit and trolling increase forum traffic. Shooting it down doesn't.
It started when Wizard back-tracked on his demand that Mdawg put up or shut up (no money involved, just time to prove something). This backtrack occurred after Mdawg bent Wizards ear privately.
Then there was weeks of bias suspensions to those challenging these claims. Once dear tried to be fair and was over-ruled on several occasions.
And recently several Mdawg supporters and socks coach belly and Wellbush were suspended. Coach belly's suspension was mysteriously reduced from 7 days to 3 and wellbush lifted after a mere 12 hour and done so after Mdawg publicly vouched for wellbush. That is like Nathan vouching for Tasha. ;) Point is that it is pretty hard to ignore the bias at this point. And that makes it pretty hard to expect a fair outcome.
KewlJ's right to challenge process before reported results. That's proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And the process I am arguing is this: Mdawgs claims are that of long-term winnings playing -EV game. Finally after conveniently reporting a loss, the claim is of winning nearly every session, every day, every trip.
So first, that claim cannot be validated, nor disproven by watching a single session. It can't be validated by watching several session either, but at least with that little bigger sample size, Wizard would be able to see and know what Mdawg is doing and report if it is a winning strategy capable of all the winning claims Mdawg has made. THAT, was the goal.
But that is not what is occurring. Now with this having turned into a challenge where Mdawg profits by just having winning session, he won't even be playing that single session, the way he normally would. He will be employing a strategy where he bets small, and progressively bets bigger until he gets ahead, which with a progression is likely at some point, and then just small bet, running out the clock to collect the extra money.
This contest or whatever you want to call it, in no way gets to the bottom of Mdawgs claims that defy math as stated.
No reason for redietz to keep posting at this Hate Site but that doesn't stop him from posting twice or three times daily along with reading every single word of every single post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
What the Fuck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Mike has constantly shown bias to his pals.
He changes the rules to fit his agenda constantly.
From StrictlyAP to WoN to BBB to AxelWolf to QFIT and even to kewlJ.
He was going to bend the rules for Mission146 but Mission declined and resigned from being a Moderator.
Course Mission didn't give up his paying gig.
Giggity.
Heck, Mike and BBB were going to bend the rules and show me bias for creating a duplicate account.
However, that plan changed when I told Mike to GFY and to Jump off a Cliff.
I still don't understand why telling someone "Good For You" is so offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
So your not really a proponent of free speech. You are a proponent of free speech when it suits you.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I don't believe for one second you tried to use a duplicate account !.....You do realize Strictly AP and WON were the same character. He can also be Dog ? Marcus Clark ?, Wellbush ?. etcQuote:
Originally Posted by monetWhat the Fuck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Mike has constantly shown bias to his pals.
He changes the rules to fit his agenda constantly.
From StrictlyAP to WoN to BBB to AxelWolf to QFIT and even to kewlJ.
He was going to bend the rules for Mission146 but Mission declined and resigned from being a Moderator.
Course Mission didn't give up his paying gig.
Giggity.
Heck, Mike and BBB were going to bend the rules and show me bias for creating a duplicate account.
However, that plan changed when I told Mike to GFY and to Jump off a Cliff.
I still don't understand why telling someone "Good For You" is so offensive.
And don't believe for a second, Mike and company don't absolutely know this! WoV was tops in detecting and not allowing sock puppets (when they wanted to be) and now, we are supposed to believe they have no clue who is and isn't a sock puppet. Every other forum knows how to navigate around VPN's, but WOV is suddenly perplexed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
I was kind of making a funny when I said StrictlyAP and WoN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
This is because my fiasco basically got his user name of WoN Nuked.
You see Mike claims that he never knew that WoN was StrictlyAP even though every one of his Moderators and all of his AP Pals on the site knew and made constant jokes about it.
As I said before... I'm a hothead and I asked for a 30 day self-suspension and Mike gave it to me.
Of course I got itchy to post and just created a another username (PingPangPong).
At the time I didn't think anything of it.
They let me post for about two weeks under that name without any problem and everyone joked about it.
Nobody was upset.
I really didn't know that it was a huge deal (no no) or that it broke the rules because I never read them.
I didn't know you couldn't post whatever you wanted on the internet.
A bit naive at the time with the ethics of forums and what not.
I learned kind of fast as Mike banned me pretty quick lol.
He and the Mods were going to overlook the duplicate account until I told him to GFY and Jump lol.
I didn't like what he said to me so you know... I blasted him, publicly as I don't fuck around with that PM bullshit.
So yeah people got all upset because he said duplicate accounts are never tolerated.
So he Nuked me and all the MoDs and APs joked around that WoN was StrictlyAP.
So Mike had a meeting with his MoDs and after that he said that He and the MoDs had strayed from the rules.
They banned WoN and said they would be more strict with the rules but that never lasted lol.
Anyways... whatever... I did make a duplicate account though.
I think that theywontpayontuesday might be WoN but I could care less.
People like WoN don't bother me and obviously none of the APs on WoV, the Wizard or Bob Dancer have a real problem with WoN because they all partnered up with him at one time or another.
WoN only bothers them now because he burned them lol.
It doesn't take much for the Mob to turn on you and bring the pitchforks.
MDawg is WoN??
That wouldn't matter to me either.
I barely read any of MDawgs posts and WoN never posted much that I read.
The funny thing was that he constantly advertised to hire employees on a duplicate account at WoV for how many years??
lol lol lol... Wizard in Cahoots with WoN and now MDawg or are they the same person!?
I dunno... don't really care except for a little bit of the entertainment.
In my mind MDawg is just telling his stories or adventures.
I never seen him trying to sell anything or meet up with people to rob them.
Fiction or Non-Fiction doesn't really matter as nobody is forced to read his threads/posts.
Dancer got stiffed pretty good by Won/ StrictlyAP etc... Couldn't have happened to a more stand up guy then " Dual Dancer".........I believe theywontpayontuesday is Mamat :)Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI was kind of making a funny when I said StrictlyAP and WoN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
This is because my fiasco basically got his user name of WoN Nuked.
You see Mike claims that he never knew that WoN was StrictlyAP even though every one of his Moderators and all of his AP Pals on the site knew and made constant jokes about it.
As I said before... I'm a hothead and I asked for a 30 day self-suspension and Mike gave it to me.
Of course I got itchy to post and just created a another username (PingPangPong).
At the time I didn't think anything of it.
They let me post for about two weeks under that name without any problem and everyone joked about it.
Nobody was upset.
I really didn't know that it was a huge deal (no no) or that it broke the rules because I never read them.
I didn't know you couldn't post whatever you wanted on the internet.
A bit naive at the time with the ethics of forums and what not.
I learned kind of fast as Mike banned me pretty quick lol.
He and the Mods were going to overlook the duplicate account until I told him to GFY and Jump lol.
I didn't like what he said to me so you know... I blasted him, publicly as I don't fuck around with that PM bullshit.
So yeah people got all upset because he said duplicate accounts are never tolerated.
So he Nuked me and all the MoDs and APs joked around that WoN was StrictlyAP.
So Mike had a meeting with his MoDs and after that he said that He and the MoDs had strayed from the rules.
They banned WoN and said they would be more strict with the rules but that never lasted lol.
Anyways... whatever... I did make a duplicate account though.
I think that theywontpayontuesday might be WoN but I could care less.
People like WoN don't bother me and obviously none of the APs on WoV, the Wizard or Bob Dancer have a real problem with WoN because they all partnered up with him at one time or another.
WoN only bothers them now because he burned them lol.
It doesn't take much for the Mob to turn on you and bring the pitchforks.
There is a rationale for not allowing sock puppets. It mainly has to do with members creating phony members that agree with them for credibility where there otherwise is none.
On a forum like WoV that bans people right and left (no other forum bans that many members), obviously you don't want banned members creating new accounts and returning. But that is a situation of their own making by banning so many unnecessarily to begin with.
You have to look at intent. IMO, intent in Monet's example was not to deceive or create any kind of credibility where non existed. neither was my spiderman. I just wanted to warn players on a forum, I otherwise couldn't. And example of intent to deceive is the current situation with Mdawg, creating sock puppets to support him, because he has no or little support otherwise. Singer, notoriously did the same.
So there should be some flexibility as to what intent is. Unfortunately, flexibility is not one of Michael Shackleford's strong points, to say the least. He is very rigid and inflexible (think Sheldon).
And it should be mentioned there is a third use of sockpuppets: Nathan/Tasha and all the other names. Let's just call that one "crazy town".
We all got it coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
I thought Mike was supposed to be the Gold Standard for Honesty in the Underworld of Gambling?
Impossible.
His name the Wizard is from a known Mobster.
He partners with people like WoN.
He has goofy videos with that girl lol.
Serbs?
500 Dollars?
The list goes on and on.
Obvious Bad Guy.
I would have to say 3/4 or so of socks are good to very occasionally great posters. Its ironic some of the most frequent and or sophisticated sock/dupe creators are the worst sock/dupe detectors :)
Of all your evilness, bigotry, homophobia, bitterness, HATE and just general negativity, looking for and seeing the worst in every person and every situation, this exemplifies what I dislike most about you. First, you are judgmental, which is pretty shitty to begin with, but you think everyone is as evil as you, and are out to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetWe all got it coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
I thought Mike was supposed to be the Gold Standard for Honesty in the Underworld of Gambling?
Impossible.
His name the Wizard is from a known Mobster.
He partners with people like WoN.
He has goofy videos with that girl lol.
Serbs?
500 Dollars?
The list goes on and on.
Obvious Bad Guy.
The truth is there is good and bad in everybody, although I have yet to see much good in you, it must be buried very, very deep (below a lot of fat :)), but I suspect it is there. This is what being human is! Good and bad.
So Mike sold his business to the Serbs for mega bucks. Obviously that wasn't his intent when he started WoO/WoV. It was about the math (the good days) and making a name for himself as a gambling math expert. Selling out to online casino company is a bit sleazy, but that is business and that's what it was. Anyone with half a brain would have done the same.
His "goofy" videos with girls: Pretty geeky IMO, old school tactic of having pretty girls in videos or selling things. Today that is kind of thought of as exploitative, but whatever. IMO, Mike is only embarrassing himself and proving himself to be kind of goofy and outdated.
I don't know nothing about WoN partnership. I really don't. wasn't during my time there and I paid little attention.
"Oviously a bad guy": See that is you. That is what you want to see. You see and take delight in seeing only the bad. You are Mr. Negative. But what is even uglier, is your need to judge people like you do. Someone really screwed you up as a kid and it has totally fucked you up as an adult.
I'm offended that you think I have General Negativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That's a low blow.
Even for you.
Nothing General about my Negativity.
Why are you sugar coating Rusty " kind of goofy" KJ he's a complete goof in those videos. Say it like you mean it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOf all your evilness, bigotry, homophobia, bitterness, HATE and just general negativity, looking for and seeing the worst in every person and every situation, this exemplifies what I dislike most about you. First, you are judgmental, which is pretty shitty to begin with, but you think everyone is as evil as you, and are out to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetWe all got it coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
I thought Mike was supposed to be the Gold Standard for Honesty in the Underworld of Gambling?
Impossible.
His name the Wizard is from a known Mobster.
He partners with people like WoN.
He has goofy videos with that girl lol.
Serbs?
500 Dollars?
The list goes on and on.
Obvious Bad Guy.
The truth is there is good and bad in everybody, although I have yet to see much good in you, it must be buried very, very deep (below a lot of fat :)), but I suspect it is there. This is what being human is! Good and bad.
So Mike sold his business to the Serbs for mega bucks. Obviously that wasn't his intent when he started WoO/WoV. It was about the math (the good days) and making a name for himself as a gambling math expert. Selling out to online casino company is a bit sleazy, but that is business and that's what it was. Anyone with half a brain would have done the same.
His "goofy" videos with girls: Pretty geeky IMO, old school tactic of having pretty girls in videos or selling things. Today that is kind of thought of as exploitative, but whatever. IMO, Mike is only embarrassing himself and proving himself to be kind of goofy and outdated.
I don't know nothing about WoN partnership. I really don't. wasn't during my time there and I paid little attention.
"Oviously a bad guy": See that is you. That is what you want to see. You see and take delight in seeing only the bad. You are Mr. Negative. But what is even uglier, is your need to judge people like you do. Someone really screwed you up as a kid and it has totally fucked you up as an adult.
He is a complete goof in those videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
What does it matter. That is on him. That doesn't make him "an obviously bad guy". There are things it is fair to be critical about. AND I USUALY AM. The videos aren't one of them. Totally insignificant.
But it does make him seem like a total pervert. The constant sexual innuendo comes off as from an awkward 18 year old. Maybe he truly is a Man Child as others have said. He does have that history of being kicked out of a group when members said they weren’t comfortable being around him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHe is a complete goof in those videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
What does it matter. That is on him. That doesn't make him "an obviously bad guy". There are things it is fair to be critical about. AND I USUALY AM. The videos aren't one of them. Totally insignificant.
Either way, it’s a good bet Heather has between $500 and $1250 coming her way soon for more cleavage videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc
Psshaw! He won $15 Million at Blackjack, not all that impressive. Someone won 600 Million on a $3 Powerball bet.....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewGAccording to this interview Don Johnson did not have that 10% edge. What is your source?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbDJ was playing with an over 10% edge WITHOUT the rebates.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
Here's Don Johnson's interview.
https://youtu.be/aHrkS_qbZLY
And there's more in an article in Blackjack Apprenticeship. You can Google it. I tried to copy the link but I can't. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Well, MDawg, since I'm not one of those guys who challenged your watches or your level of play, which I don't find terribly high, all I can say is don't spend all of DarkOz's money in one place. LOL.
Now, as to "reading the flow of the cards," well, that's just utter nonsense. Of course, DarkOz is going to be providing wing man duties going forward as now he needs to justify his donation with insights as to your AP angles.
To quote from Guys and Dolls,
"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an earful of cider."
Why'd you get banned? What a great quote! WoV needs posts like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Well, MDawg, since I'm not one of those guys who challenged your watches or your level of play, which I don't find terribly high, all I can say is don't spend all of DarkOz's money in one place. LOL.
Now, as to "reading the flow of the cards," well, that's just utter nonsense. Of course, DarkOz is going to be providing wing man duties going forward as now he needs to justify his donation with insights as to your AP angles.
To quote from Guys and Dolls,
"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an earful of cider."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Why'd you get banned? What a great quote! WoV needs posts like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Well, MDawg, since I'm not one of those guys who challenged your watches or your level of play, which I don't find terribly high, all I can say is don't spend all of DarkOz's money in one place. LOL.
Now, as to "reading the flow of the cards," well, that's just utter nonsense. Of course, DarkOz is going to be providing wing man duties going forward as now he needs to justify his donation with insights as to your AP angles.
To quote from Guys and Dolls,
"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an earful of cider."
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...68/#post803471
My point was that I was posting a "system" just like Wellbush had posted in defense of MDawg. Only my "system" actually had methodology details and an internal logic, as opposed to Wellbush, who was non-specific. Both are, of course, ridiculous, but at least mine had internal logic and spelled out details.
I see that sabre, who posted after me, was not at first suspended, but now he is. LOL. He said he could also read flows of cards, but only if he was within 15 feet of the cards and stark naked. Somehow I was suspended while his post was left in good standing for a day.
I blame that on Shackleford's love of any sentence with the word "naked" in it.
But eventually sabre was suspended as well.
Shackleford has gone off the rails. From a serious gambling perspective, the site is junk. But maybe that's what the Serbs are shooting for. More power to them rounding up the rubes.
I disagree with the length of your ban, but given the nature of your parodic system, there's no question that Rule 19 was violated. I'd have had no other choice but to toss a ban your way, were I still an Admin. I'd have probably looked through your previous infractions to see if any involved religion, and if not, would have treated it as an entirely new offense and given you three days rather than Martingale. I consider you as, "Having value to the Forum," so I would be slightly biased towards trying to ban you for as little time as I could reasonably defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Why'd you get banned? What a great quote! WoV needs posts like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...68/#post803471
My point was that I was posting a "system" just like Wellbush had posted in defense of MDawg. Only my "system" actually had methodology details and an internal logic, as opposed to Wellbush, who was non-specific. Both are, of course, ridiculous, but at least mine had internal logic and spelled out details.
I see that sabre, who posted after me, was not at first suspended, but now he is. LOL. He said he could also read flows of cards, but only if he was within 15 feet of the cards and stark naked. Somehow I was suspended while his post was left in good standing for a day.
I blame that on Shackleford's love of any sentence with the word "naked" in it.
But eventually sabre was suspended as well.
Shackleford has gone off the rails. From a serious gambling perspective, the site is junk. But maybe that's what the Serbs are shooting for. More power to them rounding up the rubes.
It's a message board, so it is what the posters make it, in that regard. Once upon a time, there was so much going on there that MDawg's thread could be just as active as it is now, but it wouldn't hold Top 10 Most Recent for longer than an hour at a time.
So because of MDawgs crazy claims, no one else can make any gambling claims over there now? And if they do it is considered trolling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146I disagree with the length of your ban, but given the nature of your parodic system, there's no question that Rule 19 was violated. I'd have had no other choice but to toss a ban your way, were I still an Admin. I'd have probably looked through your previous infractions to see if any involved religion, and if not, would have treated it as an entirely new offense and given you three days rather than Martingale. I consider you as, "Having value to the Forum," so I would be slightly biased towards trying to ban you for as little time as I could reasonably defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...68/#post803471
My point was that I was posting a "system" just like Wellbush had posted in defense of MDawg. Only my "system" actually had methodology details and an internal logic, as opposed to Wellbush, who was non-specific. Both are, of course, ridiculous, but at least mine had internal logic and spelled out details.
I see that sabre, who posted after me, was not at first suspended, but now he is. LOL. He said he could also read flows of cards, but only if he was within 15 feet of the cards and stark naked. Somehow I was suspended while his post was left in good standing for a day.
I blame that on Shackleford's love of any sentence with the word "naked" in it.
But eventually sabre was suspended as well.
Shackleford has gone off the rails. From a serious gambling perspective, the site is junk. But maybe that's what the Serbs are shooting for. More power to them rounding up the rubes.
It's a message board, so it is what the posters make it, in that regard. Once upon a time, there was so much going on there that MDawg's thread could be just as active as it is now, but it wouldn't hold Top 10 Most Recent for longer than an hour at a time.
How does that make any sense at all? How do we know they are not true? Or that the posters that have been suspended for claims don’t actually believe them? Do we know for a fact Sabre didn’t pull his clothes off 15 feet from a table? Perhaps he didn’t measure but was actually 17 feet away? Does anyone have access to any recent arrests for indecent exposure in a casino?
Just gives more credibility to those who claim MDawg and his socks run the forum and the Wizard is his puppet.
Exactly. I never mention MDawg in those posts.
The core issue is that "reading the flow of cards" is a basic parody of the entire alleged WoV take on material gambling reality. All of the MDawg posts are a WoV parody.
MDawg's posts are a parody of WoV and all AP postings! Don't you get that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146I disagree with the length of your ban, but given the nature of your parodic system, there's no question that Rule 19 was violated. I'd have had no other choice but to toss a ban your way, were I still an Admin. I'd have probably looked through your previous infractions to see if any involved religion, and if not, would have treated it as an entirely new offense and given you three days rather than Martingale. I consider you as, "Having value to the Forum," so I would be slightly biased towards trying to ban you for as little time as I could reasonably defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...68/#post803471
My point was that I was posting a "system" just like Wellbush had posted in defense of MDawg. Only my "system" actually had methodology details and an internal logic, as opposed to Wellbush, who was non-specific. Both are, of course, ridiculous, but at least mine had internal logic and spelled out details.
I see that sabre, who posted after me, was not at first suspended, but now he is. LOL. He said he could also read flows of cards, but only if he was within 15 feet of the cards and stark naked. Somehow I was suspended while his post was left in good standing for a day.
I blame that on Shackleford's love of any sentence with the word "naked" in it.
But eventually sabre was suspended as well.
Shackleford has gone off the rails. From a serious gambling perspective, the site is junk. But maybe that's what the Serbs are shooting for. More power to them rounding up the rubes.
It's a message board, so it is what the posters make it, in that regard. Once upon a time, there was so much going on there that MDawg's thread could be just as active as it is now, but it wouldn't hold Top 10 Most Recent for longer than an hour at a time.
Read his post and read Rule 19. His post invoked religion, and is therefore, a violation of Rule 19. That's why I would have no choice but to give him three days. I would not have issued a ban for Trolling and Trolling would not have been mentioned in my stated reason for the ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
IOW, my entire ban would have been predicated on Rule 19 (which didn't even exist when I was an Admin) for invoking religion.
Because of that, the rest of your post is not relevant as relates to me.
WoV is not specifically an AP forum. Never was. Never claimed to be. Others have made that claim on its behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But it was supposed to be about gambling truth and gambling math and NOT voodoo claims. Voodoo claims, have always been called out as such and now suddenly they are not, because you have a long running thread that is perceived to add traffic. It isn't adding traffic it is adding more comments by the same members and driving some legitimate members away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
That's why it is in the Betting Systems subsection. There's no precedent for that subsection not also appearing on the, "Recent Threads," list. Would you like me to suggest that it should be? I usually don't do anything that would be perceived as Administration or an attempt to Administrate the Forum, but in general (and it has nothing to do with MDawg himself or his thread) I would support betting systems not appearing on Recent Threads...though I wouldn't otherwise be inclined to actually be the one to suggest it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Anyway, it would have to be that entire subsection and not apply to Mdawg's thread only.
It's a math-based forum. Now go ahead and tell me that WoV is NOT a math-based forum. I can go as semi-autistic as you're being here, Mission. I have that ability. You're arguing minutiae and none of this is about minutiae or specific rules.
If I posted that I prayed to my Chevy van on weekdays, my statue of Smaug on Sundays, and will convert to Harry Potterism on Saturdays because it fits with my schedule, are you saying I would NOT have been suspended? None of those are religions. When my suspension lifts, I'll post that, say that Mission helped me see the error of my ways regarding religion, and we'll see how long the post stays up.
And, to be as semi-autistic as Mission, I want to point out that voodoo is a religion, also. So any mention of voodoo at WoV should result in immediate suspension, if not a permanent ban. Because nobody ever says voodoo in a positive or neutral way. It's appalling, really.
Correct, but it and all Mike’s work including WoO’s were described by him as trying to explain the games and help players make the best possible wager on negative games. Along with some work on basic AP play such as must hits and others over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146WoV is not specifically an AP forum. Never was. Never claimed to be. Others have made that claim on its behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But he also used the forum to call out claims that were outright scams and lies, along with claims that didn’t pass the smell test in regards to math. And until MDawg he still did that, but for some reason he just let that one slide. Maybe he did get sick of all the PM’s, which I actually agree with him on. It sounds like a few on both sides were constantly bothering him with them.
The answer may be as simple as he doesn’t give a fuck anymore and has his money. But something changed with MD and his claims and the question is why?
If betting systems were categorically not supposed to be there, then there would not be a betting systems subsection. The thread is in the Betting Systems subsection. You state that you do not specifically want MDawg banned. What other action do you think that the Forum rules support taking, here?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If it drives, "Legitimate," members away, then it does. Who gives a fuck? Not me. Most of you are fickle anyway. The Forum will never be what it once was and Message Boards (in general) are a dying medium anyway. I'll keep writing as long as they keep paying and will continue to post until I am one of the only ones left. When the writing for money is done, then I guess I'll be done also. I'll be doing something else entirely. A few vultures will have less competition. I'll probably still post on DT, so you'll know where to find me, assuming a non-zero number of us are there.
Since you are at DT, can you remind the Wiz my 1 year suspension was up a while back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
He specifically asked someone to remind him because he will forget about it.
I’m sure he will love you for that!��
Well, if those fuckers would respect that Asperger's and Autism are separate things once and for all, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, yes, the Forum discusses mathematical principles and realities and such is arguably the only real objective of WoO...or was originally. It still does mostly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Everything is about specific rules. Why the fuck even have rules otherwise? Again, it's in the Betting Systems subsection, so I don't know what else you could want, in that regard.
I would be hesitant to mention, "Praying," at all, especially in light of one of the partial stated causes for your current suspension.
Further, I'm only stating what I would do were I an Admin, which I'm not. You can say that I, "Helped," you all you want, but that carries no more weight than saying that the guy at the local deli helped you with your mistake vis-a-vis the rules. I have no clout there. The only thing I do is flat out delete blatant spam---which I do as a courtesy because I could not edit my articles without retaining other privileges.
I look forward to Autism being used against me in future arguments. It definitely invalidates everything that I have ever said or will ever say and there exists no potential for an argument to be either right or wrong on its own merits. Perhaps, were I not autistic, I wouldn't think so many people are idiots.
You'll forgive me for checking the Suspension list first, but if that is the case, then I will send him a PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by The BozSince you are at DT, can you remind the Wiz my 1 year suspension was up a while back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
He specifically asked someone to remind him because he will forget about it.
I’m sure he will love you for that!��
Not at all, the link is there. It was when I went off on his buddy Bluejay. He didn’t seem to appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146You'll forgive me for checking the Suspension list first, but if that is the case, then I will send him a PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by The BozSince you are at DT, can you remind the Wiz my 1 year suspension was up a while back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
He specifically asked someone to remind him because he will forget about it.
I’m sure he will love you for that!��
Hell, I don't have his money and I don't give a fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Regardless of what anyone wants to say, we generally don't ban on demand. I didn't. I guess KewlJ would disagree regarding his situation, rightfully so, but that's why I use the word, "Generally." Wizard generally does not ban because someone else demands it. He bans if there's a rule violation, again, generally.
I've said it before, the more someone bothers me about something they want me to do, the less likely my doing it becomes.
MDawg Wins.
The End.
"kewlJ would disagree? Ya think!! ;) But while I have moved on from that and the complete re-writing of rules to do so, it is nauseating to see it happen all over again as it is with this Mdawg situation. MFraud PM's Mike constantly demanding suspensions and bannings. Don't take my word for it, ask Mike. He usually will tell you. If he is in one of his honest moods, he will tell you he is suspending someone just to get a break from Mdawgs complains for a few days or week. That is just retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
That argument does not compute.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Mike's House.
Mike's Rules.
You don't like it... door hit you and all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Well, if those fuckers would respect that Asperger's and Autism are separate things once and for all, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, yes, the Forum discusses mathematical principles and realities and such is arguably the only real objective of WoO...or was originally. It still does mostly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Everything is about specific rules. Why the fuck even have rules otherwise? Again, it's in the Betting Systems subsection, so I don't know what else you could want, in that regard.
I would be hesitant to mention, "Praying," at all, especially in light of one of the partial stated causes for your current suspension.
Further, I'm only stating what I would do were I an Admin, which I'm not. You can say that I, "Helped," you all you want, but that carries no more weight than saying that the guy at the local deli helped you with your mistake vis-a-vis the rules. I have no clout there. The only thing I do is flat out delete blatant spam---which I do as a courtesy because I could not edit my articles without retaining other privileges.
I look forward to Autism being used against me in future arguments. It definitely invalidates everything that I have ever said or will ever say and there exists no potential for an argument to be either right or wrong on its own merits. Perhaps, were I not autistic, I wouldn't think so many people are idiots.
Actually, I wasn't knocking autism or Asperger's, per se. One of my guys has the nickname, "Asperger's Boy," which was bestowed upon him by his girlfriend. As I have often said, when I'm in a room with my people, I'm the dumbest guy in there by any IQ test, and I'm an old National Merit Scholar.
My point is that, when you have those abilities, sometimes those abilities become a negative, and it behooves the person hanging out with or conversing with the person with the abilities to point out when the abilities have become a drag. And that's what I'm doing.
Mission, your focus on minutia and the details of verbiage are what give you the ability to be infinitely patient describing complex processes in a way that's superior to me and most others. But on this topic, that kind of focus is causing a not seeing the forest for the trees effect. You wind up being a minutia apologist for someone who undermines all credibility for the WoV site and anyone on it.
I liken the problem to having various microscope lenses and not being able to swing from one to another to understand the bigger picture, even though your particular lenses are sharper and better than most. If you can't rotate between lenses optimally, you lose big picture views.
And, by the way, Mission, are you saying you have Asperger's or are on the autistic spectrum? That may be common knowledge, but I didn't know that. I just thought your responses sometimes get stuck on barely relevant details in an obsessive fashion, so I threw an analogy out there.
Hellllllllllll yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Where do you find the time to post?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Busy day Scamming people with your Handi-Scamming Sports Picks and Slurping Noodles with your Slant Eyed Massage Girls while constantly posting.
You sure can multi-task for a person up in age.
I don't accept that as true, but I'm not saying it isn't. I'd tell everyone (on both sides) complaining to me that they could all go fuck themselves, except I'd say it more nicely than that as I am an Admin in this hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I've always stopped short of saying this, but I'm going to say it: All of you were better off when I was an Admin there. Serves some of you right.
I think I was nuked before your resignation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
Matter of fact, it is clear that my weird self banning started a chain reaction and eventual Nuke caused WoN to be Nuked and you to resign lol lol lol.
I took you bastards down with me and wasn't even trying nor did I have knowledge about StrictlyAP as it was before my time.
It was a sheer fluke lol.
I didn't know he was WoN but didn't care as I wouldn't have any dealings with WoN even after he PMed me about some great play he had to offer me lol.
I threw that PM in the trash like most PMs I receive.
Bound to happen anyway as my personality could never survive at that Forum.
And after realizing how great this VCT Forum is, I don't understand why more people aren't over here calling each other names.
This place Rules!