A Theory About Anti-AP Posters

[tableplay]

Do you continue to play heads-up if the count is negative or marginal?

No, you go answer a call of nature whether you actually have to answer one or not.

So in other words, there is no where, where I stated " you only play positive counts". Also answering "no" to the question "do you continue to play heads up if the count is negative or marginal" means you may have started to play negative counts and then discontinued if the count became heavily negative. Answering "no" to this question does not necessarily mean you are not to play marginal counts (the "no" is applied to discontinuing to play negative counts"). Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.

[redietz]

I stand by every single word on that site, and I'll still take a polygraph to back it all up.

I'd like to witness this. Is this something that can be reasonably accomplished? What are your conditions?

Penn and Teller have gone on record as saying polygraphs are bullshit, basically fake science, but primarily because they create false positives, not false negatives. In other words, people test out as guilty when innocent a lot more than innocent when guilty. But since everything on the site is true, I don't mind taking a crack at it because it's not likely to engender stress.

We'd need a randomly chosen polygraph operator giving three sets of identical tests throughout a day, or three randomly chosen polygraph operators giving the same test three times one day. This would be an effort to take initial stress or variance out of the equation. Since I'm the one being challenged, if I fail, I reimburse the challenger for the polygraph costs. If I pass, I do not.

[kewlJ]

You are wasting your time, tableplay. These guys read what they want to read, NOT what is written. Coach belly is a master at twisting everything around trying to create a "gottch ya" moment. He is a mater at baiting people....a 'masterbater'.

For what it's worth, while I am not answering for tableplay, I do things a little differently when it comes to heads up play.

First, heads up play is not my favorite thing, despite the benefits. It also has some negatives in my book. A couple are, that the profile of a card counter is that they prefer heads-up, and third bases. So I like to avoid these. Second and probably more important is that I do exit aggressively on negative counts. Wong out. When you do this playing heads up, the game comes to a complete halt, as there is no one left to play. That draws attention, which I try to avoid. As you exit, you can feel the dealer and sometimes pit, watching you walk away. If there is a least one other person this aggressive exit is less conspicuous. The game goes on. Your exit draws less attention.

However there are benefits to heads up. Everyone knows that heads up means a faster game, more rounds per hour and that translates to more money. But there is a benefit that is even more important to me. I call it "exposure time". A card counter is most exposed when the count goes positive and he starts betting bigger. That is when the scrambling starts...both in the pit and surveillance room. The race is on to evaluate the players and make a determination as to whether he is playing with an advantage and what to do about it.

So when the count rises and the counter starts betting bigger, this is the "danger zone" (Danger, danger Will Robinson!). And in a regular game this is when the card counter is exposed, sitting there with his max (or bigger bet) out....exposed for all to see. Those 30-40 seconds exposed for each round (up to a minute with crowded tables) aren't doing the counter any favors, as the clock runs in this "race". But playing heads up the player can wiz through these rounds, 10 seconds per round or faster, getting through the favorable shoe, and out the door quicker. Less exposure time.

[coach belly]

Also answering "no" to the question "do you continue to play heads up if the count is negative or marginal" means you may have started to play negative counts and then discontinued if the count became heavily negative. Answering "no" to this question does not necessarily mean you are not to play marginal counts (the "no" is applied to discontinuing to play negative counts"). Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.

Nobody can comprehend the explanation you wrote above.

Just to be clear, when I asked "Do you continue to play negative or marginal counts", and you answered "No",
you didn't rule out playing all negative counts?

[kewlJ]

Oh so as I gave a little insight into my view on heads up (above), I forgot to state what I really set out to say. Because of the benefits mentioned, when I am playing heads up, I will play into the neutral and negative counts a little bit further than I normally would. My exit is a little less aggressive on negative counts. I am not going to play through a whole shoe of negative counts, but I will give it a couple extra rounds to see if the count flips.

[tableplay]

You are wasting your time, tableplay. These guys read what they want to read, NOT what is written. Coach belly is a master at twisting everything around trying to create a "gottch ya" moment. He is a mater at baiting people....a 'masterbater'.

For what it's worth, while I am not answering for tableplay, I do things a little differently when it comes to heads up play.

Second and probably more important is that I do exit aggressively on negative counts. Wong out.

Agreed, I am going to ignore him from now on. thanks for the advice. Of course you exit aggressively on negative counts. Only coach belly thinks a player should sit through big negative counts and lose their money (and that people that don't are frauds).

[coach belly]

We'd need a randomly chosen polygraph operator giving three sets of identical tests throughout a day, or three randomly chosen polygraph operators giving the same test three times one day. This would be an effort to take initial stress or variance out of the equation. Since I'm the one being challenged, if I fail, I reimburse the challenger for the polygraph costs. If I pass, I do not.

I'll need access to the information to formulate the questions.

I haven't been able to access the site, but there's time to figure that out. Is there a direct link?

In the meantime, we should be able to work out the city, date and times. What city, date and time do you require?

[coach belly]

Only coach belly thinks a player should sit through big negative counts and lose their money (and that people that don't are frauds).

There's the lie. I never said that or anything like that, I've made few or no statements regarding playing strategy.

I've asked questions about heads-up strategy, some of which you deliberately answered fraudulently.

[coach belly]

Second and probably more important is that I do exit aggressively on negative counts. Wong out. When you do this playing heads up, the game comes to a complete halt, as there is no one left to play. That draws attention, which I try to avoid. As you exit, you can feel the dealer and sometimes pit, watching you walk away.

This was explained earlier, and is a scenario that I understand.

I followed up with the question...

How many times can you walk away from negative counts, only to return to play heads-up with a new shoe...without getting made, backed-off or flat-betted?

This was the answer...

36

Isn't that a deliberately fraudulent answer?

[redietz]

We'd need a randomly chosen polygraph operator giving three sets of identical tests throughout a day, or three randomly chosen polygraph operators giving the same test three times one day. This would be an effort to take initial stress or variance out of the equation. Since I'm the one being challenged, if I fail, I reimburse the challenger for the polygraph costs. If I pass, I do not.

I'll need access to the information to formulate the questions.

I haven't been able to access the site, but there's time to figure that out. Is there a direct link?

In the meantime, we should be able to work out the city, date and times. What city, date and time do you require?

I would suggest Los Angeles, as there should be enough operators, and Dan could be present so as to make it a party. Probably film the event while we're at it. Washington D.C. would be a reasonable second choice, since operators should be plentiful.

[Alan Mendelson]

Will this be an officially licensed polygraph examiner? If so there is a problem. California does not license polygraph examiners.

[coach belly]

I would suggest Los Angeles, as there should be enough operators, and Dan could be present so as to make it a party. Probably film the event while we're at it. Washington D.C. would be a reasonable second choice, since operators should be plentiful.

I asked for requirements, you gave suggestions.

I'll suggest the obvious...how about Vegas? I think that will be a better party. Any objection?

[Alan Mendelson]

Polygraph examiners are licensed in Nevada.

[redietz]

I would suggest Los Angeles, as there should be enough operators, and Dan could be present so as to make it a party. Probably film the event while we're at it. Washington D.C. would be a reasonable second choice, since operators should be plentiful.

I asked for requirements, you gave suggestions.

I'll suggest the obvious...how about Vegas? I think that will be a better party. Any objection?

My concern is that Washington D.C. has a larger pool from which to randomly draw examiners. California probably doesn't license them because it's the most scientifically progressive state and considers it junk science. Same as why they're not admissible in court.

Check and see how many operators are in Nevada versus D.C. I'd rather go with the higher quality pool of operators, which I suspect is in D.C. Also, questions will obviously be limited to what is specifically claimed on the www.IntegritySports archived site, claimed on this forum, or general, such as "Are you ahead lifetime gambling?" or "Are you ahead lifetime sports gambling?"

Obviously, I'm not going to discuss other people, with the exception of the "Did you work for Billy Walters?" That was mentioned on this forum and is fair game.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually Nevada uses polygraph for all sorts of reasons including police and parental and abuse cases. Since you travel frequently to Vegas and there are plenty of polygraph companies here I am sure a test in Vegas will be easily accessible. I also think the costs will be lower in Vegas. Redietz just how often are you in Washington? More often than I go to Tony's office which is now some 250 miles from where I live?

[coach belly]

I'd rather go with the higher quality pool of operators, which I suspect is in D.C.

I'm not concerned with the quality pool of operators, you should do fine in any location.

I'm more interested in the pool of witnesses that would attend, so LV would be my choice. Do you object?

Also, questions will obviously be limited to what is specifically claimed on the www.IntegritySports archived site, claimed on this forum, or general, such as "Are you ahead lifetime gambling?" or "Are you ahead lifetime sports gambling?"

Obviously, I'm not going to discuss other people, with the exception of the "Did you work for Billy Walters?" That was mentioned on this forum and is fair game.

Agreed...but I'll need a link to the website to see what was claimed. I haven't been able to access the site through the wayback machine.

Can you help with any links?

[redietz]

I prefer Washington D.C. for two reasons. First, if any city is going to have polygraph operators vulnerable to the vagaries of casino execs, it would be Las Vegas. And at 35K a year or less (the average salary for an operator), anyone with cash can influence an operator. So I'd rather step outside the bounds of Nevada. Second, D.C. has the Library of Congress, and I need to try to track down a copy of the 1984 Who's Who in Sports Gambling to at least photograph the cover and my page. I think a stop there would be helpful.

So I'm going to stick with Washington D.C. as the locale. It will be a pain for me to get there, and it won't be cheap, but it sidesteps the Nevada anti-AP issue.

[LarryS]

he is an investment advisor as per one web description calling sports betting "investments". He is involved in "investments"....so I guess he sells investment advice.

Why, LarryS, as such a cogent and honest guy, I'd expect you to explain that you stumbled onto that particular line while checking the IntegritySports.com website on the wayback machine from, what, 1996? A web archived address that I gave you. And, as a cogent and honest guy, you of course included all of the details from that site regarding what had been accomplished, and my offers on that site to take polygraphs to back up every word, along with the list of published results from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" stretching a dozen years. LarryS, did you fail to mention that? Why, for shame. Not very cogent and honest of you.

This is why it's pointless to deal with these people. LarryS unveils some sarcasm regarding a 25-year-old website line, fails to mention anything else about what's on the site, fails to mention that I gave everyone that website address, and decides his definition of "investment" supersedes a dictionary definition. Moreover, he doesn't explain the origin of the line because people might read everything on the archived site and discover something more impressive than LarryS.

The site is available via the wayback machine. It's IntegritySports.com. I stand by every single word on that site, and I'll still take a polygraph to back it all up.

wow how many times can you remind us about some publication tipsters or gypsters.
I totally believe that you and others have good 3-6 month stretches...even amazing 3-6 month stretches over a period of 20-30 years.

I amsure you can provide articles or contest wins postings . And I am sure you arent going to provide data from the extended periods where you lost money.

the true elite of sports gambling quietly make their money and dont sell picks. Billy walters accumulated his wealth without being an "investment councilor" And they certainly dont come to websites and tryto convince nameless faceless people that they are living a good life from betting sports. They dont give a shit.

So I have no doubt you can pass a polygraph regarding some good or great stretches in your betting life.

can you pass a poly that asks if 90percent of your net worth is from betting sports? 80 percent,? 70 percent? 30 percent?

But a few articles and a few contest wins do not make me think that strictly from sports bets you have supported a family, and have a 401k for your retirement large enough to live on for 20 years.

And if you do, I have no idea what part of that came from any day job you might have had. And selling sports picks at one point in your life could have created some wealth. Or from other day jobs.

I believe there are articles about you....but articles are a snapshot in time.

[redietz]

The McCusker Report (aka "Tipsters or Gypsters?") published multi-year records, so you could check the back page and find someone's five-year (or more) records.

And I guess I get to mention again that I worked for Billy Walters, so I think I know a bit more about him than you do.

You guys are all the same. You retreat to "do you have a 401K to support you for 20 years?" when you're faced with someone who actually wins. Alan thumbs his nose at kewlJ's income with his pension comments. This isn't about having a 401K. This is about winning. Winning at gambling. Any idiot from a wealthy family can jam their way into pharmacy school or law school and have a 401K. Standard of living is no arbiter of knowing what you're talking about. To me, knowing what you're talking about is "living a good life." And telling the truth. And putting your actual name to what you say.

The sum total of what LarryS said: no records, no polygraphs, no industry reputation is good enough to be convincing to LarryS. LOL. So what? We all knew that. We were just hoping you'd baldly spell it out for the civilians in the audience.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't thumb my nose at kewlj's income. I just have to point out that my full time career was a lot more lucrative than his full time career.

By the way I am very concerned about how corporations replaced pensions with 401ks because soon a generation of 401k retirees will start to realize that those $200,000 and $300,000 accounts won't last very long. We are going to face a retiree income crisis ten years from now.

I've been active in my union since 1972 and for a short time I was a union local president in NYC. I dread what's coming and American workers will soon regret that they left the union movement in droves during the 1980s.

I'm also grateful that I've been part of AFTRA and now SAG-AFTRA for all these years.