Rob Singer banned

[Alan Mendelson]

I looked on the main page of the forum. My posts are around 14,000.

There are forum statistics on the bottom of the main page.

[RS__]

Fair enough. I think it'd be easier to go by the # on a specific post, because each post has its own unique number (at least it should), and would be easier to track that way, IMO.

Presumably the first post since Rob Stringer banned is the OP in this thread: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post52857

#52,857

It's been 14 days since the ban.

This post (mine) is: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post53599

#53,599

Difference is 742.


I'll try to find a post on Sept. 15, around 5-6pm (same time Rob was banned). And compare the #.


Quahog on 9/15 around 3pm: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post52167

#52,167

Difference is 690.


So there hasn't been a sizable increase or decrease in activity, based on # of posts. But if you look at quality, it seems there's been a nice improvement, particularly since Rob Stringer hasn't been posting. I guess to me it seemed like there were more posts recently because I had (still have) Rob Stringer blocked and wouldn't read his garbage.

[RS__]

Just for fun, let's see how many posts there've been on WOV since 9/29 (2 weeks), since Alan thinks there's more activity on this forum for some reason.

Latest post I see is from MaxPen: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info...ss/#post609852

#609,852

This post by boz on 9/30: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-...15/#post608122

#608,122

Difference is 1730.

[kewlJ]

So there hasn't been a sizable increase or decrease in activity, based on # of posts. But if you look at quality, it seems there's been a nice improvement, particularly since Rob Stringer hasn't been posting. I guess to me it seemed like there were more posts recently because I had (still have) Rob Stringer blocked and wouldn't read his garbage.

In fairness, there was an unusual event, of major interest that occurred, that you would expect increased # of posts. But regardless of whether there were slightly more or less posts in that time frame is meaningless. It's a small sample size and as AP's we learn very early on, to not draw any conclusions based on a small sample sizes. It really has no significance.

In this short run, the site seems more active, because there are more posts that most of us are interested in and interested in replying to and less "garbage". In short it is just a more enjoyable site for most of us.

But as time goes on, and more members that lurk and read and sit on the sidelines become comfortable and more members that pop in only once in a while, see the improved atmosphere, I think (and hope) you will see increases that are more meaningful and you can draw some real conclusions from.

[kewlJ]

Just for fun, let's see how many posts there've been on WOV since 9/29 (2 weeks), since Alan thinks there's more activity on this forum for some reason.

Latest post I see is from MaxPen: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info...ss/#post609852

#609,852

This post by boz on 9/30: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-...15/#post608122

#608,122

Difference is 1730.

Why? Why are you comparing this site to Wov? Oh yeah, because you are a guy and guys are competitive and have the need to compare "things".

Are you trying to say Wov is a better site? More significant?

I suppose you may get some arguments from some of the deniers, but not from me. I always liked Wov (just not real fond of Wizard the last 18 months). I always thought Wov was a decent site and had a good mix of AP, gambling, vegas and other discussions. That's why I chose to participate there for 4 years...well until some outsider showed up and demanded that Mike exile me. But that's another story....maybe I will tell it to you someday.

[RS__]

In fairness, there was an unusual event, of major interest that occurred, that you would expect increased # of posts. But regardless of whether there were slightly more or less posts in that time frame is meaningless. It's a small sample size and as AP's we learn very early on, to not draw any conclusions based on a small sample sizes. It really has no significance.

In this short run, the site seems more active, because there are more posts that most of us are interested in and interested in replying to and less "garbage". In short it is just a more enjoyable site for most of us.

But as time goes on, and more members that lurk and read and sit on the sidelines become comfortable and more members that pop in only once in a while, see the improved atmosphere, I think (and hope) you will see increases that are more meaningful and you can draw some real conclusions from.

That's true. Although I'd argue to an extent it just shifted the content of the posts. Sort of like the posts in "Trump's the best president ever" thread (maybe you read the title differently than I do) practically came to a halt and people started posting in the "mandalay bay shooter" thread (it was getting like 4-10 pages of posts per day (10 posts per page), and since the shooting, 36 posts).

Yes, it is a small sample, though. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes in the next few weeks.

Why? Why are you comparing this site to Wov? Oh yeah, because you are a guy and guys are competitive and have the need to compare "things".

Are you trying to say Wov is a better site? More significant?

I suppose you may get some arguments from some of the deniers, but not from me. I always liked Wov (just not real fond of Wizard the last 18 months). I always thought Wov was a decent site and had a good mix of AP, gambling, vegas and other discussions. That's why I chose to participate there for 4 years...well until some outsider showed up and demanded that Mike exile me. But that's another story....maybe I will tell it to you someday.

No. I just thought it was funny Alan thought this forum was (is? FFS grammar FTL) more active than WOV. Since I was already looking at post counts on here, I figured it'd be a good enough time to do the same thing on WOV.

[AxelWolf]

Fair enough. I think it'd be easier to go by the # on a specific post, because each post has its own unique number (at least it should), and would be easier to track that way, IMO.

Presumably the first post since Rob Stringer banned is the OP in this thread: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post52857

#52,857

It's been 14 days since the ban.

This post (mine) is: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post53599

#53,599

Difference is 742.


I'll try to find a post on Sept. 15, around 5-6pm (same time Rob was banned). And compare the #.


Quahog on 9/15 around 3pm: https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post52167

#52,167

Difference is 690.


So there hasn't been a sizable increase or decrease in activity, based on # of posts. But if you look at quality, it seems there's been a nice improvement, particularly since Rob Stringer hasn't been posting. I guess to me it seemed like there were more posts recently because I had (still have) Rob Stringer blocked and wouldn't read his garbage.

Yes, But, how many of them posts were from singer and his puppets? If you subtract his posts then we may have more since his ban.

[RS__]

Yes, But, how many of them posts were from singer and his puppets? If you subtract his posts then we may have more since his ban.

Since Sept. 15'th, I counted 96 posts.

[kewlJ]

Wait!....Who were his puppets? (I am so lost when it comes to these things? )

[Treeshade]

Redeitz, I remember reading about a guy that owned and published a sports handicapping rag called The Gold Sheet. I think this has been a few decades ago but he was kind of an honest guy in competition with all the bullshit handicappers. He challenged those handicappers to a contest where he put up a $100,000 prize. Any of those touts that could hit 70% winners through 100 picks would get the $100,000. It started with a bunch of handicappers. The last handicapper left dropped out of the contest at about 25 picks. The handwriting was on the wall. No one was going to even come close to 70% winners.

PS: I personally consider consistently winning sports handicappers to be AP's. And I think the rarest of all AP's is a consistently winning horse handicapper.

A copy of the first interview I ever gave regarding sports handicapping was in the "package." The interviewer asked me if I did horses. I said something like, "Too hard. I'd sooner bet on three-legged giraffe races."

Mort Olshan was one of the industry founders with his Gold Sheet. Nobody real shoots for 70%. And straight-up handicapping doesn't tell the whole story these days, either. Numbers move so much and so fast in college football that half the skill is knowing which way they'll move and when they'll move.

The best combined college/NFL year I ever had was about five years ago. I hit 66% (66-34, obviously) over a hundred games, and that was including a 17-game winning streak that I wrote about during the streak. The record and streak were documented in a contest online for handicappers sponsored by a subsidiary of Marc Lawrence and Jim Feist. I did not win -- another dude was unconscious picking college totals in the Pac 12 and Mountain West. He actually beat me. And of course, second place got zero cash.

Anybody winning 55% is doing a stellar job. That's the bottom line.

Horses to hard

[Tasha]

Seedvalue, what is up with your constant bumping up of threads that were forgotten about YEARS ago to write complete nonsense?

[DGenBen]

Seedvalue, what is up with your constant bumping up of threads that were forgotten about YEARS ago to write complete nonsense?

He doesn’t waste time bumping old threads.

He has his cock surf through old threads while he is sleeping to give it something to do.

[Dan Druff]

I disagree with my 2017 self regarding this ban. I shouldn't have done it, even with Rob's shitposting at the time.

[Rob.Singer]

I disagree with my 2017 self regarding this ban. I shouldn't have done it, even with Rob's shitposting at the time.

I'm involved with this?

I must be more popular than Taylor Kelce. Or is it Travis Swift....

[MisterV]

I disagree with my 2017 self regarding this ban. I shouldn't have done it, even with Rob's shitposting at the time.

What "ban?"

Singer has been posting here for a long time now.

If you previously banned him, how can this be?

[AxelWolf]

I disagree with my 2017 self regarding this ban. I shouldn't have done it, even with Rob's shitposting at the time.

What "ban?"

Singer has been posting here for a long time now.

If you previously banned him, how can this be?

He banned and then unbanned him.

FYI: If I recall correctly Rob and Alan had some big falling out? Alan claimed that Rob deceived him regarding where and how much money he had actually made with is a system or some nonsense like that.