Axel try to deal with what you're about to read:
I don't know who you are and I don't care what you think.
Axel try to deal with what you're about to read:
I don't know who you are and I don't care what you think.
The real problem was and still is that you and the rest of the trolls will choose whatever it is that will help you insult me and put me down. And why? Because I was willing to give Rob Singer a fair shot at explaining his special plays. Never did I endorse them, but that didn't matter. You just wanted him ignored and I just wasn't going to do that.
Ironically I never was criticized for reporting both sides of the abortion issue. Never. But give Rob a fair shot is a different story.
That's what's really sad.
The problem, which you can’t see, is that giving Rob a fair shot isn’t fair, especially once you’ve figured out his entire system is horseshit. There isn’t a single person in the world, who’s competent at math AND endorses Rob’s style of play. Not one. That, I can guarantee.
Countless times people have talked about advantage plays and Alan tries to dismiss them. First he dismisses hope carding because he doesn’t even know WTF it is, then once it’s described to him, he says that never happens. Then once he figures out it happens, he says it’s super rare. And on and on.... Alan thinks you can’t count two tables at once because he has this idea in his head you have to sit in the worst possible position with crowds of people all around you. He has this idea that since you aren’t guaranteed to win and that since it’s possible that you can lose — then it’s not legitimate AP because “but you can still lose”. That’s equivalent to saying medicine or some medical procedures aren’t legitimate because “they may not work”.
Arguing with Alan, Rob, et al is a pointless endeavor because they aren’t going to change their opinions on anything. And even if somehow they did change their opinions on AP — then what?
#FreeTyde
It's not a reporter's job to decide if it's horseshit or not. If reporters made those judgment calls our press would cover one side of most issues.
I use the abortion issue as my example because no other issue in America is as definitive as the abortion debate. Do you think for a minute that the mainstream media would cover Right To Life fairly if reporters judged the issue?
Look at the presidential election. The media did get caught with its pants down because too many reporters and editors used their own bias to cover the campaign.
I begged all of you to read the article on my website where I clearly defined why I gave Rob a fair hearing to present his case. Not one of you read it because you kept telling me the same crap redietz told me: ask a math professor. And just as I told redietz over and over again and as I'm going to tell you again for the umpteenth time, there was no need to talk to any math professors because Rob even admitted himself that his plays were at a disadvantage.
Still you ignored the reason I presented Rob's special plays: it was to provide a record of what he said and what they were because his own website no longer existed.
That's what honest reporters do. Period.
The bottom line is none of you wanted to let Rob have a fair hearing and probably some of you didn't want Trump to have a fair hearing or Hillary to have a fair hearing either, depending on your views. Well, those of you who are one sided will never be good or honest reporters. And today we know many mainstream reporters aren't good or fair after what happened during the election.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
RS__, the horseshit part is that you ap's are too stupid to get anywhere close to knowing what I successfully do, and you're too lazy--and too afraid--to actually try to understand anything different than what you claim to do from your armchair. There's a reason you cowards hide under anonymity.....
And Alan, you know as well as I do that almost all these self-proclaimed "so smart" AP's are nothing but a collection of real world dropouts who are lucky if they made it thru high school, but who like to claim they have "ungodly amounts" of "streetsmarts" which they then transfer into some sort of super-intelligent "gambling smarts". It's the classic self-confidence-building scheme that the uneducated, who envy successful people, experience.
As a result, because they think they're somehow special for giving themselves a twisted, alternative reason to live (see "mickeycrimm") they see someone educated and successful like you doing an unbiased report on one of their biggest and most knowledgeable critics--also successful and well-educated--and they have no choice but to levy the lies and personal attacks in every direction but their own.
But the more they jump up and down the more we win their sick game. Look at BBB for instance (danky over here). How many times has this clown said I'm not worth talking about, yet the poster mentions me more times than kew whines about "leaving for good!"
These people do have high levels of "skin-crawlability", that's for sure. But it's also fun putting up with that lowlife trait, with the predictable reward of watching them constantly tell more lies while coming apart at the seams.
Then we get a few doses of redietz' corn. That's when we know it was all worth it!
When Rob craps on your thread just report it to Dan. It takes him only a few clicks to remove Rob's posts and ban him from the thread.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
I still don’t know who BBB is. But I do know Alan is dumb and Robbie is an asshole.
Actually Axel you don't know what my family members think.
I'm going to explain why I think what Mr. Mendelson wrote above is dead wrong.
My mentor, which may be too strong a word, but my only advisor and coach in college, was Robert Gannon, the adventure editor for Popular Science at the time. Gannon became famous for checking himself into a hospital, taking LSD, and reporting on it before anybody really knew what LSD was. He visited erupting volcanoes, learned to fly gliders, and took experimental aquatic cars for test drives in flood conditions, among his various writing projects.
Gannon's preparation was voluminous and organized. He had large ring binders of research materials for each assignment. He spoke to experts before his adventures, then did his research, did the adventure, and wrote about it.
But here's the thing -- when he had finished his writing assignment and had it ready for publishing -- HE ALWAYS LOOKED UP TWO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND HAD THEM REVIEW WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN. He did this so that he was never caught assuming something that was laughably incorrect to any expert. He knew that, no matter his civilian preparation, there was always a chance he misinterpreted something and was out of his depth of understanding. It was only after the experts had cleared his writing that Gannon would say it was public-ready.
That is how things should be done.
Okay, V. That was funny. No, he didn't fly gliders while tripping. My bad. It would have explained the aquatic car story, though. He wrecked it and gave it a bad review. Hard to handle, he said.
But yes, LSD had, I believe, just been de-legalized for his first story. The story's in a Popular Science issue from the early 60's. Probably '61 or '62. I have it around here somewhere, but "the lab" is a mess during football season.
Redietz what you failed to mention in your example is the basis of objective journalism: accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.
If his reports were objective and accurate he would not submit them to outsiders for justification.
You fail as a journalist.
Stick to sports.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Actually they were. But you failed to read them. You might have looked at the videos but you didn't read the report on my website which went with the videos.
If you had read the reports it was clearly spelled out what the purpose was. They were totally objective.
What YOU wanted was a lopsided report condemning Rob. It's also what redietz wants.
Sorry.
Objectivity doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. If he explained how volcanoes worked and somehow got the geothermal engineering summary wrong, an expert would correct it. Just as when you get basic probability horribly wrong, an expert in probability or game theory or the math of casino gaming could correct you. But you have to be ready to admit that you're just a civilian who doesn't have a grasp of everything. You don't have that ability. Bob Gannon wrote for Popular Science. That means science was involved. And math. The publishers would never stand for incorrect voodoo.
But be my guest. Submit your summary of Argentino's work to any gaming or gambling publication. See if your objectivity and accuracy pass muster in the real world.
Redietz I don't have to submit my reports to anyone. I made them public myself. Just like you should make your own documents public instead of sending them out for approval as you did with your package. LOL
Stand up for yourself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)