Would You Allow an MDawg?

[redietz]

This is a spin-off of what Boz asked. You have two forums that purport to be at least semi-serious places to discuss gambling -- WoV and VCT. So here are the questions.

1) If you were in charge of WoV, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?
2) If you were in charge of VCT, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?
3) If you started your own forum, to take some far-fetched examples, maybe something called integritysports.com or lizardofvegas.com, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?

[Ozzy]

I would have a anything goes type mentality for the most part, with very rare exceptions. Even though most of what Dog says, is a fresh steaming pile of dung, I would allow him to post. Like it or not, he brings some views. Even though I don't read about 80+% of his posts anymore. Basically anything over 4 sentences. There are only a handful of posters, that can post marathons that I'll read ex: Druff, Monet, Axel etc.

[Darkoz]

Sadly drama sells.

Jerry Springer is a pretty smart guy. Go back if you can and watch his first season. The intent of the show was to have intelligent discussion of serious topics and it was quite cerebral. Ratings were in the toilet and his show was announced to be cancelled.

He had on a disturbing topic where the guests act like they do today and that saved the show.

Would anyone here want to have a show that degrades itself like Jerry Springer? Probably not until the ratings and money pours in.

[redietz]

I tend to see the three things -- WoV, VCT, and your own site -- as different. WoV has advertising. VCT does not. I'm not sure how many views VCT would have to accrue for its value to move up significantly, but I'd think you'd need to expand viewership by factors (of five or ten or more) rather than percentages for there to be much difference. So getting more clicks from a limited parade of locals may not have much effect on value. But I could be wrong. On the other hand, if an MDawg style of poster partnered up with site owners and paid them modestly under the table, then presumably everybody wins except any civilians reading the stuff.

[Mission146]

This is a spin-off of what Boz asked. You have two forums that purport to be at least semi-serious places to discuss gambling -- WoV and VCT. So here are the questions.

1) If you were in charge of WoV, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?
2) If you were in charge of VCT, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?
3) If you started your own forum, to take some far-fetched examples, maybe something called integritysports.com or lizardofvegas.com, would you allow MDawg-style gambling posting? And why or why not?

1.) Yes. Individual posts aside, I fail to see what rule his general posting violates. You could maybe make an argument that his trip report thread, in particular, might be relegated to the Betting Systems sub-forum, but even that would have nothing to do with whether or not he could post there. It also wouldn't matter much as I tend to believe most active posters just use the, "Recent/Unread Threads," function.

The only Rule you could invoke is Rule 20, which exists if someone is totally disruptive but such disruption doesn't strictly apply to the other 19 Rules. This rule states that it applies to, "The Worst of Trolls," but MDawg seems to mainly keep to his own threads. Also, the only way for MDawg to be considered as Trolling would be for his claims to be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that would most likely require some form of Doxxing (and that's IF his claims aren't true) which would be a rule violation of its own.

2.) Yes. This forum is more loosely Moderated than WoV, so if I'd let MDawg remain at WoV, I'd obviously let him remain here.

3.) Yes, but if the whole thing became too pervasive I'd just have a single thread called, "Trip Reports," that would probably have some sort of a general disclaimer on it. The disclaimer would be something along the lines of these are events that are shared by contributors to this site, but the site allowing the sharing of such events does not mean that the site considers the events to be true and that individual gambling experiences will vary. Also, betting systems will not beat a negative expectation game.

[regnis]

I have never expressed an opinion on Dawg's claims, and I still am not going to do so. But why should anyone have a problem with his posting? He is intelligent and well spoken, whether you believe what he posts or not. Read it, don't read it; believe it, don't believe it--up to you. But why shouldn't he be able to post?

[mickeycrimm]

Throughout history people have been bombarded with lies. It wasn't as bad before mass communication but still there. Human beings are inveterate liars. The biggest liars are those who purport to know the truth. And of course, they are the ones that insist they know what is a lie and what isn't.

I don't have a problem with MDawg per se. I think he's probably lying about the constant winning but so what? It's no skin off my teeth and I don't think I have to protect other people from "MDawg's lies." If you want to protect the world from lies there are far bigger targets than MDawg. If you don't want to hear any lies then damn sure don't turn your TV on. Who is protecting us from all the lies coming thru the boob tube? Nobody.

The people you have to watch are the ones that say they "know the truth and those who go against it should be silenced." These people are tyrannical types that are out for to much control over others.

I recently said I was the one on VCT that knew the truth, that anyone that went against the truth should be banned from VCT, and that I was the one qualified to determine who should be banned. I intended for people to call me out on it and say they were the ones who should determine what the truth is. I was surprised no one did. No one wanted to play the game. Funny.

My intention was to show that it isn't the liars we have to worry about. Its the ones that think they should be the arbiters of the truth and want to exercise that power to silence those they disagree with. Liars aren't the problem. The ones who want to control speech are the problem. I don't trust those motherfuckers to high heaven.

It all comes down to who gets to decide what the truth is. I don't trust one person on the planet to be the arbiter of it. I oppose anyone and everyone who wants to ban the MDawg/Rob Singer types from the gambling forums.

Everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is not. Leaving it up to someone else to determine it for you is lazy and stupid.

[mcap]

Are you fucking kidding me? Whatever’s on your mind subsection.....but technically the post doesn’t exist because OP doesn’t really post here and when he does it’s only to clear up misconceptions, and this wasn’t about that either.

[monet]

Fucking Redietz!
Hate Site Contributor.
Admit it.
You love it here.
Guess they ignore you too much at WoV.

[Ozzy]

Honorable mention to the Comrade, he would be the 4th warrior whos taken a lot abuse like a champ. Chin up Comrade.

[redietz]

I have never expressed an opinion on Dawg's claims, and I still am not going to do so. But why should anyone have a problem with his posting? He is intelligent and well spoken, whether you believe what he posts or not. Read it, don't read it; believe it, don't believe it--up to you. But why shouldn't he be able to post?

The problem I would have, as a site owner, would be one of responsibility. If you are trying to grow a forum, one assumes a greater and greater percentage of gambling civilians coming to the site.

Here's where I'm going with this. I would treat my own forum as a kind of basketball camp or coaching clinic. If I'm running a basketball camp or coaching clinic, ostensibly I know something about basketball and can teach it. Now I won't be expert on every aspect -- post play, press defenses, conditioning, free throw shooting -- but I would screen people so that (let's assume volunteer camp teachers) everybody teaching each aspect would appear to know what they are doing.

If I have expertise regarding skill development and winning at basketball, I want the people who come to my camp to learn real skills and how to win. If one of the volunteer teachers is there every day and keeps pushing shooting hook shots as a way to make free throws, I have to intervene and throw him out of the camp unless he sticks to stuff that has some real world traction. And if he says he shot hook shot free throws at 88% his whole life and has taught others to do it, but he provides no proof, I have to be practical and get him out of there. Otherwise I compromise the credibility of the entire camp or clinic, and I demean everyone who is teaching actual expertise and how to win at basketball.

Now, one can say that nobody will believe somebody can hook shots at 88% and the camp attendees should know better.

But should they? And what does allowing him his hook shot riff say about me?

Of course, if I'm just there to make money off the camp and/or sabotage the development of attendees who might one day compete against teams I actually coach, then maybe I allow the hook shot free throw guy to do his thing. He's popular, well spoken, and everybody likes to shoot hook shots.

[MisterV]

I have never expressed an opinion on Dawg's claims, and I still am not going to do so. But why should anyone have a problem with his posting? He is intelligent and well spoken?

So was Hitler, and look what that got us.

Intelligence and the ability to write well are the lubricant of a master bull shitter.

Hello, Rob Singer.

[Mission146]

I have never expressed an opinion on Dawg's claims, and I still am not going to do so. But why should anyone have a problem with his posting? He is intelligent and well spoken, whether you believe what he posts or not. Read it, don't read it; believe it, don't believe it--up to you. But why shouldn't he be able to post?

The problem I would have, as a site owner, would be one of responsibility. If you are trying to grow a forum, one assumes a greater and greater percentage of gambling civilians coming to the site.

Here's where I'm going with this. I would treat my own forum as a kind of basketball camp or coaching clinic. If I'm running a basketball camp or coaching clinic, ostensibly I know something about basketball and can teach it. Now I won't be expert on every aspect -- post play, press defenses, conditioning, free throw shooting -- but I would screen people so that (let's assume volunteer camp teachers) everybody teaching each aspect would appear to know what they are doing.

If I have expertise regarding skill development and winning at basketball, I want the people who come to my camp to learn real skills and how to win. If one of the volunteer teachers is there every day and keeps pushing shooting hook shots as a way to make free throws, I have to intervene and throw him out of the camp unless he sticks to stuff that has some real world traction. And if he says he shot hook shot free throws at 88% his whole life and has taught others to do it, but he provides no proof, I have to be practical and get him out of there. Otherwise I compromise the credibility of the entire camp or clinic, and I demean everyone who is teaching actual expertise and how to win at basketball.

Now, one can say that nobody will believe somebody can hook shots at 88% and the camp attendees should know better.

But should they? And what does allowing him his hook shot riff say about me?

Of course, if I'm just there to make money off the camp and/or sabotage the development of attendees who might one day compete against teams I actually coach, then maybe I allow the hook shot free throw guy to do his thing. He's popular, well spoken, and everybody likes to shoot hook shots.

Let's go ahead and have this discussion mostly within parameters similar to your example:

From the Forum description:

WizardOfVegas.com was launched to the general public on November 9, 2009. The goal of the site is to be an informative travel guide about Las Vegas.

AND:

However, our most popular feature is the forum where you're welcome to learn from each other about Vegas, gambling in general, and whatever else is on your mind.

I think of the site more as kind of all things gambling than I do a travel guide to Las Vegas exclusively, but that's neither here nor there. There are some travel guide components, but I think we can be almost positive that 99% of all visitors are there to read my articles. I jest, of course, the Forum almost certainly drives most of the traffic.

So, "Vegas, gambling in general and whatever else is on your mind."

Well, MDawg's posts certainly qualify as, "Gambling, in general."

I guess I should get around to making my points:

1.) I don't know that the Forum is exclusively about teaching anyone anything. There are posters who do that, but it's not like a requirement for posting is to be teaching people accurate gambling information. You could create a site that does that exclusively, but it would have to be moderated a lot more tightly than WizardofVegas or this site, amongst other things.

2.) I don't believe that MDawg has ever been compensated by the sites to write anything. I don't think you're going to see an Article on WoV about his Baccarat play, or a page on WoO (which actually does purport to teach about gambling) having to do with that.

-To that extent, the site just provides a platform for MDawg to discuss his play within the parameters of the site's rules, just as anyone else could do.

3.) WizardofVegas is NOT an advantage play site. Never was. Probably never will be. Just because Advantage Players hang out there or have hung out there, as well as excellent mathematicians (I am not one of the excellent ones and am not a mathematician at all) doesn't make AP the site's purpose. It's something that's discussed or written about from time-to-time. So was politics, at one point, but it was never a site with the goal of discussing politics.

4.) The next thing you mention is, "Volunteer Teachers." Does MDawg purport to be teaching anyone anything---as in, has he said that? I haven't seen it, if so, but I'm not saying he didn't because I have not read all of his posts.

5.) Beyond that, like I hinted at before, perhaps a person could advocate for moving his thread from, "Trip Reports," to, "Betting Systems," not that most people would notice the difference. Other than that, absent a violation of site rules, it seems that there's no real case for throwing him out. Put another way:

WoO = Credibility
WoV= Mostly people bullshitting with each other and sometimes credible gambling information.

6.) Slippery slope. People can win (until the extreme long run) at negative expectation games. It is possible. The slippery slope is---at what point do you start throwing people out for reporting results? Do you kick everyone out for discussing winning at negative expectation games at all?

I'm a lifetime winning horse bettor, by the way, 100% true story. I've bet one race in my entire life, picked several horses with long odds to win, and the longest odds horse actually came in for me! First horse bet I've ever made and haven't made one since. I could safely make several more without going lifetime negative, but I don't think I will, I like my lifetime rate of return!

7.) This one is more of a question: Are you implying that he's allowed to post there in order to sabotage other gamblers? Listen, I'm compensated to write for the sites and I openly said this in his thread just today (before your post here):

That doesn't mean that anyone has to accept what he is saying as true. The safest thing for anyone to do when it comes to any claim of a negative expectation game being beaten is to assume that the person is lying. I'm talking about making a quiet assumption, not an accusation.

Hell, when it comes to people claiming to win at a positive expectation, you're still safest just to assume they're lying. People say, "Trust, but verify," they should say, "Verify."

All of that said, if someone wants to play it safe in terms of gambling, I can summarize how to do that in one simple phrase, if you don't bet, then you can't lose.

Like, seriously, does that sound like I want to sabotage folks?

[jbjb]

The dude is a troll. Nobody, including MD, is cleaning Wynn's clock at any of the baccarat tables. The moron would go away if you all ignored the stupid fucker.

[jbjb]

He says he's going down to play. So why don't one of you Vegas guys go watch.

[Ozzy]

Paging AlexWolf Paging AlexWolf we need the ability of a long time Vegas sharpie to tackle this endeavor.

[Ozzy]

I would include Monet as well, but he obviously could care less about this.

[AxelWolf]

Paging AlexWolf Paging AlexWolf we need the ability of a long time Vegas sharpie to tackle this endeavor.

What's the question? I doubt I would Kick MDawg or anyone off my site if I was trying to monetize it, unless, they did something reprehensible. I would have something in place, a tag or something like a BS meter attached to certain members.

I would be more inclined to boot Coach since he doesn't even bring entertainment value.

[coach belly]

I would be more inclined to boot Coach

I'm inclined to give you a boot too, little fella.

Let's see if I can make Peter Pan fly.

[Ozzy]

Paging AlexWolf Paging AlexWolf we need the ability of a long time Vegas sharpie to tackle this endeavor.

What's the question? I doubt I would Kick MDawg or anyone off my site if I was trying to monetize it, unless, they did something reprehensible. I would have something in place, a tag or something like a BS meter attached to certain members.

I would be more inclined to boot Coach since he doesn't even bring entertainment value.

I was referring to the post about a local watching him play, I know you could do it, if you wanted to. Wouldn't be very difficult for detective AlexWolf. Totally agree with useless YellowBelly. No decent credible member with an IQ higher then a toilet seat sees any kind of value out of him, other then instigating, stirring the pot and being chihuahuas brownosing servant and middleman.