Originally Posted by
redietz
The basic problem with this site is that the two most prolific posters, Mr. Mendelson and Argentino, have demonstrated a real need to debunk any AP claims with both impulse-driven gotchas and lying that has become transparent and cartoonish. Mendelson runs off to take blurry blackjack table photos to debunk partial counting of a second table claims. He doesn't measure the distances; he doesn't consult optometrists about clarity at the distances; he doesn't ask professional blackjack players. He just runs out and takes pictures and proclaims "gotcha." He was wrong. Then I mention getting "checks" -- I'll stick with the Americanized spelling (Argentino would prefer it, I'm sure) -- at the sports book, and Mendelson says "he never heard of it." When I tell him to keep calling, it dawns on him that he may be wrong (again) and he calls the NGC. You've gotta be kidding.
The problem isn't Mr. Mendelson playing Clouseau. The problem is that he plays Clouseau against perceived APs, and stays completely mum regarding others. Now normally, I'd say that's his prerogative. Gamblers who lose have issues with those who don't. It's a law of nature. What makes Mendelson different, however, is that he has a history as a professional consumer advocate and investigative journalist. So when he brings arguments to bear against some but not others, many readers assume he's fair, and that he knows what he's talking about gambling-wise. He isn't fair, however, and he doesn't know much. His earned high-quality reputation actually makes his rhetoric worse.
Now none of this would matter, except these are the two highest-volume-to-date posters on this forum, so the forum is, essentially, about them. If the two highest volume posters are either completely ignorant or making shit up, there's not much one can do, and there's really no hope for the forum. When a high profile, nationally recognized journalist with 15,000 posts decides my use of the word "checks" is worthy of a gotcha, but someone else's mystery system that's overcome negative EV to the tune of a million dollars isn't worth some hard origin questions (such as, "How did the IRS agree you had demonstrated a model that could generate profits after you'd lost the previous five years?"), what is one to do? When a high profile, nationally recognized investigative journalist with 15,000 posts calls the NGC to see if sports bets can be paid with chips, but doesn't call the NGC about a rigged video poker machine in an Arizona storage locker, what is one to do?
Fortunately, I think the tide turned a bit with more math-oriented people on the site. There's no question both Mr. Mendelson's cover and Argentino's schtick have lost most of their credibility. Mr. Mendelson's son blew his cachet, and Argentino's weird insistence that I texted him, but that he lost the texts, speaks for itself.
I don't think there is a solution. Dan seems to treat Mr. Mendelson a little equal-er, to paraphrase Orwell. Mendelson and Argentino are the two dominant posters. They haven't been held to any standards of consistency or evidence. Argentino just makes shit up, fires it out there, and then waits to see if he's been banned. The irony in all this is that Dan runs the pokerfraudalert site which shoots down fraudsters and does good, and Dan has contributed to uncovering classic and famous cheating scandals. But he also has this site, with the two most prolific posters pushing a ton of hokum.
I have the rights to some site names that I'll be getting up and running in the months ahead, including TheSkepticalGambler.com. I had no intention of having forums on the sites, as I have no interest in generating income with the sites or being frat boy president, but maybe I can attach a forum after football season and go from there. As in fifth grade, however, if you make a claim on that forum, you'll have to show the math.