The WoV Thread

[Tasha]

Drug addicts who won’t sober up are losers. Which explains V’s alignment with another loser, UNKewlJ.

This little zinger is directed my way so I'll deign to respond..

Hound, just because I smoke weed does not in and of itself make me an addict: fact is, I believe I am habituated, not addicted.

I say this because several times a year I decide, usually on a whim, to put down the pipe and not get high for awhile, typically for several weeks..."just because."

When I do this I do not have withdrawal pangs or cravings, I just...stop, and when I do smoke it is typically just a couple puffs a day.

To my mind I am like a regular daily drinker, one who typically waits til late in the day before firing up to mellow out.

I avoid driving when high but I do enjoy playing slots when buzzed.

But hey, as always I'm certain you won't let facts and reality derail your constructed narrative.

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

[The Boz]

Drug addicts who won’t sober up are losers. Which explains V’s alignment with another loser, UNKewlJ.

This little zinger is directed my way so I'll deign to respond..

Hound, just because I smoke weed does not in and of itself make me an addict: fact is, I believe I am habituated, not addicted.

I say this because several times a year I decide, usually on a whim, to put down the pipe and not get high for awhile, typically for several weeks..."just because."

When I do this I do not have withdrawal pangs or cravings, I just...stop, and when I do smoke it is typically just a couple puffs a day.

To my mind I am like a regular daily drinker, one who typically waits til late in the day before firing up to mellow out.

I avoid driving when high but I do enjoy playing slots when buzzed.

But hey, as always I'm certain you won't let facts and reality derail your constructed narrative.

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

So entering a chicken joint makes you drunk with excitement and you decide to take a piss and figure while your pants are down you might as well go the entire way. Makes sense.

[redietz]

This little zinger is directed my way so I'll deign to respond..

Hound, just because I smoke weed does not in and of itself make me an addict: fact is, I believe I am habituated, not addicted.

I say this because several times a year I decide, usually on a whim, to put down the pipe and not get high for awhile, typically for several weeks..."just because."

When I do this I do not have withdrawal pangs or cravings, I just...stop, and when I do smoke it is typically just a couple puffs a day.

To my mind I am like a regular daily drinker, one who typically waits til late in the day before firing up to mellow out.

I avoid driving when high but I do enjoy playing slots when buzzed.

But hey, as always I'm certain you won't let facts and reality derail your constructed narrative.

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

So entering a chicken joint makes you drunk with excitement and you decide to take a piss and figure while your pants are down you might as well go the entire way. Makes sense.

There's an elegance to it. You're getting maximum bang in minimum time, like an "AP." Why waste time/energy yanking pants up and down twice? Very non-advantage. It doubles your chances of losing your balance and falling into your own excrement.

[kewlJ]

There's an elegance to it. You're getting maximum bang in minimum time, like an "AP."

Advantage Player or AP is someone who finds and plays at an advantage in gambling allowing them to overcome the negative expectation of the house edge. Anyone who wins at gambling long-term or has claimed to win at gambling long-term (for decades) is either just the luckiest person on earth defying decades of negative EV and probability or they are doing something that gives them an advantage (sometimes very tiny advantage). And I don't believe in that "luckiest person" shit anymore than I believe in the Easter Bunny.

So anyone that has won for decades or claimed to have won for decades is either an advantage player, whether they realize it or not, or like it or not, or someone who is telling stories. If they have actually won for decades, they are doing something to play win an advantage.

For many/most things that advantage is pretty obvious. You can point right to it, like in card counting, or machine play with a better than 100% return. Other things are less obvious. But if a player is winning and defying the negative EV of a house edge long-term he is doing something at an advantage. There are more and more things each day that players can and are doing to play with an advantage.

Now Redietz claims he has been a winning sports bettor for decades, doing whatever he has been doing, contests, ect. If that claim is true (and I still don't doubt it), then Redietz is an AP whether he knows it or not or likes it or not. So his rants about APs are kind of bizarre.

Now contrarily, the soliciting of people, which I call "touting" or selling picks, is NOT and AP play. That is just a scammer type thing.

So which is it Red, were you a scammer type tout for the past 40 years, or were you an advantage player doing something....something you may not even realize, to have flipped the house advantage?

[The Boz]

There's an elegance to it. You're getting maximum bang in minimum time, like an "AP."

Advantage Player or AP is someone who finds and plays at an advantage in gambling allowing them to overcome the negative expectation of the house edge. Anyone who wins at gambling long-term or has claimed to win at gambling long-term (for decades) is either just the luckiest person on earth defying decades of negative EV and probability or they are doing something that gives them an advantage (sometimes very tiny advantage). And I don't believe in that "luckiest person" shit anymore than I believe in the Easter Bunny.

So anyone that has won for decades or claimed to have won for decades is either an advantage player, whether they realize it or not, or like it or not, or someone who is telling stories. If they have actually won for decades, they are doing something to play win an advantage.

For many/most things that advantage is pretty obvious. You can point right to it, like in card counting, or machine play with a better than 100% return. Other things are less obvious. But if a player is winning and defying the negative EV of a house edge long-term he is doing something at an advantage. There are more and more things each day that players can and are doing to play with an advantage.

Now Redietz claims he has been a winning sports bettor for decades, doing whatever he has been doing, contests, ect. If that claim is true (and I still don't doubt it), then Redietz is an AP whether he knows it or not or likes it or not. So his rants about APs are kind of bizarre.

Now contrarily, the soliciting of people, which I call "touting" or selling picks, is NOT and AP play. That is just a scammer type thing.

So which is it Red, were you a scammer type tout for the past 40 years, or were you an advantage player doing something....something you may not even realize, to have flipped the house advantage?

You got all that out of a discussion of why Tasha also shits on the floor when she originally was just going to piss?

[kewlJ]

You got all that out of a discussion of why Tasha also shits on the floor when she originally was just going to piss?

I really choose to just ignore all that Tasha trolling stuff you guys do.

But Red repeatedly works these little digs in about APs, into almost everything, including this Tasha trolling. And he doesn't even seem to realize that if what he claims he has done for 40 years is true, then he is an AP. So I want to point that out to him.

It is funny there is one other person that has always claimed he is a long-term winner, but not an AP. That would be Rob. That is the company Redietz now keeps.

And it is all because Red doesn't like that there are other players, other APs able to do things in sports betting to gain an advantage and win. I find that really weird.

[redietz]

There's an elegance to it. You're getting maximum bang in minimum time, like an "AP."

Advantage Player or AP is someone who finds and plays at an advantage in gambling allowing them to overcome the negative expectation of the house edge. Anyone who wins at gambling long-term or has claimed to win at gambling long-term (for decades) is either just the luckiest person on earth defying decades of negative EV and probability or they are doing something that gives them an advantage (sometimes very tiny advantage). And I don't believe in that "luckiest person" shit anymore than I believe in the Easter Bunny.

So anyone that has won for decades or claimed to have won for decades is either an advantage player, whether they realize it or not, or like it or not, or someone who is telling stories. If they have actually won for decades, they are doing something to play win an advantage.

For many/most things that advantage is pretty obvious. You can point right to it, like in card counting, or machine play with a better than 100% return. Other things are less obvious. But if a player is winning and defying the negative EV of a house edge long-term he is doing something at an advantage. There are more and more things each day that players can and are doing to play with an advantage.

Now Redietz claims he has been a winning sports bettor for decades, doing whatever he has been doing, contests, ect. If that claim is true (and I still don't doubt it), then Redietz is an AP whether he knows it or not or likes it or not. So his rants about APs are kind of bizarre.

Now contrarily, the soliciting of people, which I call "touting" or selling picks, is NOT and AP play. That is just a scammer type thing.

So which is it Red, were you a scammer type tout for the past 40 years, or were you an advantage player doing something....something you may not even realize, to have flipped the house advantage?

One thing about the KewlJ(s). They don't stay in their lane.

So riddle me this. If a so-called "tout" gets paid after winning versus losing, be that net wins for a day, for a week, for a month, or for a season, and has therefore "flipped the odds" for himself like a good "AP," I riddle you this:

Does that make the alleged "tout" an "AP" by definition? Or does that make him a "scammer?"

And then I riddle this follow-up:

If "APs," by the dint of their winning, lead to casinos tightening restrictions on all players, making the 99% of the public who are non-"APs" lose worse, does that make the alleged "APs" scammers by definition, since they are allegedly profiting from casinos while making playing conditions worse for 99 percent of all players? Are the "APs" not "scamming" the public?

Now the interesting aspect of this is one's personal definition of "scamming." So riddle me this further: The KewlJ(s) use the word "scam" pretty loosely in their post above, and I'm not sure what the scam they are referring to really is. If the alleged "touts" outperform what the public would have done, even if the "touts" still lose, at least the "touts" are performing a valuable service. Whether that service is justified by the cost relates to how well the "touts" perform and how much the buyers wager.

When "APs," however, profit in general from casinos, the bottom line is that they are causing other players to lose MORE due to belt-tightening of slots, video poker, or house rake. There is no upside for other players. So "APs," one might conclude, should be hunted down and killed like wayward Frankenstein monsters.

It's a shame The Riddler isn't here to answer these riddles, but he seems to have been insulted by the lack of appreciation for his giving away (giving things away not being an "AP" move, certainly) winning plays seven, or was it eight, times in two years while never losing. The KewlJ(s) have, I'm sure, done the same for the general public, right?

Right?


P.S. I would rather hang with Singer than the KewlJ(s), truth to tell, but only if Singer retracts the nonsense he's written about my late wife, which is frankly unforgiveable stuff and should never, ever have been allowed by Todd. I have invited the KewlJ(s) to meet me for lunch on multiple occasions, but they have declined. I suspect they don't want to interact with anyone with, as Penn and Teller say, any kind of bullshit meter.

[MisterV]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

Close, but no doobie.

Back in college we used to consume mass quantities of alcohol and illegal substances such as weed and pharmaceuticals.

Of course there were good experiences, such as feeling "good and relaxed" as you say, as well as negative ones such as "throwing up on your friends'" (in all fairness I puked in a frat brother's new Camaro after downing a quart of rum and avoided puking on anyone), but we wanted to QUANTIFY the experiences.

We came up with two words: it you fell good you were "droned" and if you felt shitty and out of sorts you were "strunk."

[kewlJ]

One thing about the KewlJ(s). They don't stay in their lane.

And right on que, this one line really says it all. Red got all bent out of shape, when other players.....other APs, for which he is one of, started doing things involving sports betting. Myself, Axelwolf, mickeycrimm. How dare we move into his area or lane.

[MisterV]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

Close, but no doobie.

Back in college we used to consume mass quantities of alcohol and illegal substances such as weed and often some pharmaceuticals.

Of course there were good experiences, such as feeling "good and relaxed" as you say, as well as negative ones such as "throwing up on your friends'" (in all fairness I puked in a frat brother's new Camaro after downing a quart of rum and avoided puking on anyone), but we wanted to QUANTIFY the experiences.

We came up with two words: it after ingesting alcohol and one or more illegals substances you fell good you were "droned" and if you felt shitty and out of sorts you were "strunk."

[MDawg]

kewlJ is basically the Boy Who Cried Wolf of these AP forums. He has lied so many times that it's impossible to believe any stories he tells

Without your mouth, you can't make a living.

Anyone who reads even a bit of a sheet of text like that, the stuff KJ spews on a daily basis, has to have a screw loose.

[kewlJ]

Anyone who reads even a bit of a sheet of text like that, the stuff KJ spews on a daily basis, has to have a screw loose.

Classic case of Napoleon Syndrome or Complex on full display here.

[DGenBen]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

Close, but no doobie.

Back in college we used to consume mass quantities of alcohol and illegal substances such as weed and often some pharmaceuticals.

Of course there were good experiences, such as feeling "good and relaxed" as you say, as well as negative ones such as "throwing up on your friends'" (in all fairness I puked in a frat brother's new Camaro after downing a quart of rum and avoided puking on anyone), but we wanted to QUANTIFY the experiences.

We came up with two words: it after ingesting alcohol and one or more illegals substances you fell good you were "droned" and if you felt shitty and out of sorts you were "strunk."

Did you have a separate word if you had no memory of the night before but you woke up in bed with a wildebeest?

[mickeycrimm]

There's an elegance to it. You're getting maximum bang in minimum time, like an "AP."

Advantage Player or AP is someone who finds and plays at an advantage in gambling allowing them to overcome the negative expectation of the house edge. Anyone who wins at gambling long-term or has claimed to win at gambling long-term (for decades) is either just the luckiest person on earth defying decades of negative EV and probability or they are doing something that gives them an advantage (sometimes very tiny advantage). And I don't believe in that "luckiest person" shit anymore than I believe in the Easter Bunny.

So anyone that has won for decades or claimed to have won for decades is either an advantage player, whether they realize it or not, or like it or not, or someone who is telling stories. If they have actually won for decades, they are doing something to play win an advantage.

For many/most things that advantage is pretty obvious. You can point right to it, like in card counting, or machine play with a better than 100% return. Other things are less obvious. But if a player is winning and defying the negative EV of a house edge long-term he is doing something at an advantage. There are more and more things each day that players can and are doing to play with an advantage.

Now Redietz claims he has been a winning sports bettor for decades, doing whatever he has been doing, contests, ect. If that claim is true (and I still don't doubt it), then Redietz is an AP whether he knows it or not or likes it or not. So his rants about APs are kind of bizarre.

Now contrarily, the soliciting of people, which I call "touting" or selling picks, is NOT and AP play. That is just a scammer type thing.

So which is it Red, were you a scammer type tout for the past 40 years, or were you an advantage player doing something....something you may not even realize, to have flipped the house advantage?

One thing about the KewlJ(s). They don't stay in their lane.

So riddle me this. If a so-called "tout" gets paid after winning versus losing, be that net wins for a day, for a week, for a month, or for a season, and has therefore "flipped the odds" for himself like a good "AP," I riddle you this:

Does that make the alleged "tout" an "AP" by definition? Or does that make him a "scammer?"

And then I riddle this follow-up:

If "APs," by the dint of their winning, lead to casinos tightening restrictions on all players, making the 99% of the public who are non-"APs" lose worse, does that make the alleged "APs" scammers by definition, since they are allegedly profiting from casinos while making playing conditions worse for 99 percent of all players? Are the "APs" not "scamming" the public?

Now the interesting aspect of this is one's personal definition of "scamming." So riddle me this further: The KewlJ(s) use the word "scam" pretty loosely in their post above, and I'm not sure what the scam they are referring to really is. If the alleged "touts" outperform what the public would have done, even if the "touts" still lose, at least the "touts" are performing a valuable service. Whether that service is justified by the cost relates to how well the "touts" perform and how much the buyers wager.

When "APs," however, profit in general from casinos, the bottom line is that they are causing other players to lose MORE due to belt-tightening of slots, video poker, or house rake. There is no upside for other players. So "APs," one might conclude, should be hunted down and killed like wayward Frankenstein monsters.

It's a shame The Riddler isn't here to answer these riddles, but he seems to have been insulted by the lack of appreciation for his giving away (giving things away not being an "AP" move, certainly) winning plays seven, or was it eight, times in two years while never losing. The KewlJ(s) have, I'm sure, done the same for the general public, right?

Right?


P.S. I would rather hang with Singer than the KewlJ(s), truth to tell, but only if Singer retracts the nonsense he's written about my late wife, which is frankly unforgiveable stuff and should never, ever have been allowed by Todd. I have invited the KewlJ(s) to meet me for lunch on multiple occasions, but they have declined. I suspect they don't want to interact with anyone with, as Penn and Teller say, any kind of bullshit meter.

Hey, Shitpot! This is kettle. YOU ARE FUCKING BLACK TOO. Sportsbetting AP's make their money betting against the public. It's the sucker money that creates the edge for you. Sportsbetting AP's are stealing money from the sucker public. If AP's in other fields are scumbags then guess what, jackoff. SPORTSBETTING AP'S ARE SCUMBAGS TOO!

Thanks for admitting you sportsbetting AP's are scumbags too.

[redietz]

Advantage Player or AP is someone who finds and plays at an advantage in gambling allowing them to overcome the negative expectation of the house edge. Anyone who wins at gambling long-term or has claimed to win at gambling long-term (for decades) is either just the luckiest person on earth defying decades of negative EV and probability or they are doing something that gives them an advantage (sometimes very tiny advantage). And I don't believe in that "luckiest person" shit anymore than I believe in the Easter Bunny.

So anyone that has won for decades or claimed to have won for decades is either an advantage player, whether they realize it or not, or like it or not, or someone who is telling stories. If they have actually won for decades, they are doing something to play win an advantage.

For many/most things that advantage is pretty obvious. You can point right to it, like in card counting, or machine play with a better than 100% return. Other things are less obvious. But if a player is winning and defying the negative EV of a house edge long-term he is doing something at an advantage. There are more and more things each day that players can and are doing to play with an advantage.

Now Redietz claims he has been a winning sports bettor for decades, doing whatever he has been doing, contests, ect. If that claim is true (and I still don't doubt it), then Redietz is an AP whether he knows it or not or likes it or not. So his rants about APs are kind of bizarre.

Now contrarily, the soliciting of people, which I call "touting" or selling picks, is NOT and AP play. That is just a scammer type thing.

So which is it Red, were you a scammer type tout for the past 40 years, or were you an advantage player doing something....something you may not even realize, to have flipped the house advantage?

One thing about the KewlJ(s). They don't stay in their lane.

So riddle me this. If a so-called "tout" gets paid after winning versus losing, be that net wins for a day, for a week, for a month, or for a season, and has therefore "flipped the odds" for himself like a good "AP," I riddle you this:

Does that make the alleged "tout" an "AP" by definition? Or does that make him a "scammer?"

And then I riddle this follow-up:

If "APs," by the dint of their winning, lead to casinos tightening restrictions on all players, making the 99% of the public who are non-"APs" lose worse, does that make the alleged "APs" scammers by definition, since they are allegedly profiting from casinos while making playing conditions worse for 99 percent of all players? Are the "APs" not "scamming" the public?

Now the interesting aspect of this is one's personal definition of "scamming." So riddle me this further: The KewlJ(s) use the word "scam" pretty loosely in their post above, and I'm not sure what the scam they are referring to really is. If the alleged "touts" outperform what the public would have done, even if the "touts" still lose, at least the "touts" are performing a valuable service. Whether that service is justified by the cost relates to how well the "touts" perform and how much the buyers wager.

When "APs," however, profit in general from casinos, the bottom line is that they are causing other players to lose MORE due to belt-tightening of slots, video poker, or house rake. There is no upside for other players. So "APs," one might conclude, should be hunted down and killed like wayward Frankenstein monsters.

It's a shame The Riddler isn't here to answer these riddles, but he seems to have been insulted by the lack of appreciation for his giving away (giving things away not being an "AP" move, certainly) winning plays seven, or was it eight, times in two years while never losing. The KewlJ(s) have, I'm sure, done the same for the general public, right?

Right?


P.S. I would rather hang with Singer than the KewlJ(s), truth to tell, but only if Singer retracts the nonsense he's written about my late wife, which is frankly unforgiveable stuff and should never, ever have been allowed by Todd. I have invited the KewlJ(s) to meet me for lunch on multiple occasions, but they have declined. I suspect they don't want to interact with anyone with, as Penn and Teller say, any kind of bullshit meter.

Hey, Shitpot! This is kettle. YOU ARE FUCKING BLACK TOO. Sportsbetting AP's make their money betting against the public. It's the sucker money that creates the edge for you. Sportsbetting AP's are stealing money from the sucker public. If AP's in other fields are scumbags then guess what, jackoff. SPORTSBETTING AP'S ARE SCUMBAGS TOO!

Mickey, I knew this would be your response. There are two humongous things wrong (at least) with what you are arguing. Let me know when you figure out what they are.

I will save my response for when you and I get on a podcast together -- LOL. Seriously, man, you bit on the most superficial, obvious, and partly wrong counter-argument to what I said.

Technically, there are actually three major things wrong with your argument, now that I think about it. I will, however, keep them to myself. They are obvious, so if you rub a few neurons together, you should arrive at them.

And yeah, I'm not kidding about problems with your argument. They are pretty obvious, and they are attached to the basic differences between playing a machine or a table game and betting a sporting event. In case it hasn't occurred to some, these are two entirely different processes with different mechanisms involved. Putting them both under the aegis of "gambling" is quite a definitional stretch. It's like lumping skeet shooting and poker as "sports."

[pinchingyourballs]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

I remember these commercials, but as I recall they were saying that buzzed and drunk DRIVING were the same.

To be honest, I have a hard time imagining you -- as in your internet persona Tasha, not the actual you, whoever the hell you are -- getting buzzed or drunk. You seem more like a teetotaler.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

To be honest, I have a hard time imagining you -- as in your internet persona Tasha, not the actual you, whoever the hell you are -- getting buzzed or drunk. You seem more like a teetotaler.

Each of the four studies also found that asexual and gray-asexual respondents were more likely to be non-drinkers (40.0-77.8%, asexual and 28.1-50.1% gray-asexual, non-drinkers, respectively) than allosexual respondents (10.2-27.2%, non-drinkers).

"Allosexual" refers to individuals who experience sexual attraction, the opposite of asexual, and is often used to describe those who do not identify as asexual.

Hmm, almost a 137 and 142 up there. Ha.

Asexual individuals may experience higher rates of mental health challenges like depression and anxiety compared to heterosexual individuals, potentially due to minority stress and stigma. However, asexuality is a variation in human sexuality, not a mental health condition.

[DGenBen]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

I remember these commercials, but as I recall they were saying that buzzed and drunk DRIVING were the same.

To be honest, I have a hard time imagining you -- as in your internet persona Tasha, not the actual you, whoever the hell you are -- getting buzzed or drunk. You seem more like a teetotaler.

Reminds me of a funny story. Back in the 90s had this friend who was a total drunk but he was trying to quit drinking.

Him, another friend, and I were heading out for a night on the town & he insisted on being the designated driver as he thought the responsibility of that would force him not to drink.

At the end of the night as we were leaving me & my second friend were chatting with these ladies we had met inside out in the parking lot & one of them looks up & points and says “Hey, isn’t that your designated driver?”

We look over and here is our friend completely blitzed and he’s walking through the parking lot with his pants down at his ankles & his dick out not even holding on to it, but just pissing in every direction as his dick flies around as he keeps walking.

[Tasha]

I see PSA saying that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. I personally do not think that buzzed and drunk are the same thing. To me buzzed is when you feel good and relaxed. Drunk is slurring your words, barely knowing your name, stumbling, laughing hard at jokes that no one told, peeing in places that are not a toilet, throwing up on your Friends, telling complete Strangers you love them, etc. THAT is drink to me, not buzzed which is feeling good and relaxed.

I remember these commercials, but as I recall they were saying that buzzed and drunk DRIVING were the same.

To be honest, I have a hard time imagining you -- as in your internet persona Tasha, not the actual you, whoever the hell you are -- getting buzzed or drunk. You seem more like a teetotaler.

I've been SLIGHTLY drunk before. I put three shots of rum in a Pina colada and lemonade Slurpee and got SLIGHTLY drunk. I was SLIGHTLY stumbling, but luckily I walk with a limp anyways, so my SLIGHT stumbling due to being SLIGHTLY drunk looked like my normal limping so my Family didn't suspect that I was SLIGHTLY drunk, LMAO!

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, I knew this would be your response. There are two humongous things wrong (at least) with what you are arguing. Let me know when you figure out what they are.

I will save my response for when you and I get on a podcast together -- LOL. Seriously, man, you bit on the most superficial, obvious, and partly wrong counter-argument to what I said.

Technically, there are actually three major things wrong with your argument, now that I think about it. I will, however, keep them to myself. They are obvious, so if you rub a few neurons together, you should arrive at them.

And yeah, I'm not kidding about problems with your argument. They are pretty obvious, and they are attached to the basic differences between playing a machine or a table game and betting a sporting event. In case it hasn't occurred to some, these are two entirely different processes with different mechanisms involved. Putting them both under the aegis of "gambling" is quite a definitional stretch. It's like lumping skeet shooting and poker as "sports."

Dream on, dimwit. Do you know what creates the edge for an advantage slot player? It's other people's money. The general public loses money playing APable slot games in a negative expectation state, drive it into a positive state, then get up and leave without playing until the game is back into a negative state. The slot AP comes along, see's the game in a positive state, then sits down and plays until the game is back in a negative state. It happens thousands of times a day across this country.

You have stated that you think we are scumbags taking advantage of the public. Yes, we take advantage of the public's mistakes. But there is nothing scumbaggery about it. It's just intelligent tactics. That's all. When I see an advantage am I supposed to think it's unethical to play it? And then not play it? Dude, get a clue.

If a world class sports handicapper like Billy Walters knows that a game should be pick 'em but one of the teams is getting 3 points, he's going to pounce. So how did the line not reflect the true strength of the two teams? You know the answer. Ignorant civilians bet the line out of whack So Walters takes advantage of the public's ignorance by taking the points. YOU DO THE SAME THING, DITZ.

IF YOU ARE TRULY A SPORTSBETTING AP THEN YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OTHER PEOPLE'S NEGATIVE EXPECTATION BETS JUST LIKE I DO. If I'm a scumbag for it then YOU are a scumbag for it.

And no amount of your "splainin'" can change that. But you are going to save the splaining till we are on a podcast. You know what that means? It means you are never going to explain it because we all know your chickenshit ass will never appear on a podcast.