Here you go AxelWolf

[DGenBen]

I have a great idea. Why don't we divide the forum into two parts? Maybe four parts, in fact.

We can have:

1) Verifiable wins versus casinos by people with real names.

2) Verifiable wins by anonymous people (in case you're wondering how that works, a sports monitor and a handicapper who wishes to remain anonymous or assigns the winning to an AI).

3) Non-verifiable stories by real people.

4) Non-verifiable stories by anonymous people.


These are four distinctly different things. Readers can then decide what degree of make believe or hearsay should be attached to each category and each poster.

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence. The only difference between the KewlJ(s)' stories (which is what they are) and MDawg's is that the KewlJ(s) attach "This is the way LV works" to their stories. MDawg attaches photos.

Too much work.

Most of us are just here for the freak show.

[AxelWolf]

I have a great idea. Why don't we divide the forum into two parts? Maybe four parts, in fact.

We can have:

1) Verifiable wins versus casinos by people with real names.

2) Verifiable wins by anonymous people (in case you're wondering how that works, a sports monitor and a handicapper who wishes to remain anonymous or assigns the winning to an AI).

3) Non-verifiable stories by real people.

4) Non-verifiable stories by anonymous people.


These are four distinctly different things. Readers can then decide what degree of make believe or hearsay should be attached to each category and each poster.

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence. The only difference between the KewlJ(s)' stories (which is what they are) and MDawg's is that the KewlJ(s) attach "This is the way LV works" to their stories. MDawg attaches photos.

Do you consider people such as Anthony Curtis and other public figures who use a pen name anonymous?

Pictures are meaningless unless you have witnesses and people who can back it up. Anyone can get pictures of anything, but that doesn't mean they are truly their pics.
Anything can be faked.

The past is meaningless. What are you doing now, what can you do now?

My previous offers still stand, put your skill up vs me(you don't believe I have any so it's an easy win for you). If you don't want to reveal your pics, fine. Dan Druff/Mike/someone we both agree on gets access to our accounts. The winner(whoever makes the most profit) over x period of time wins 5k, 10k+, you choose. Somthing like that, if you are willing to put up your skill, we can hammer out the details and come up with something.

[kewlJ]

I have a great idea. Why don't we divide the forum into two parts? Maybe four parts, in fact.

We can have:

1) Verifiable wins versus casinos by people with real names.

2) Verifiable wins by anonymous people (in case you're wondering how that works, a sports monitor and a handicapper who wishes to remain anonymous or assigns the winning to an AI).

3) Non-verifiable stories by real people.

4) Non-verifiable stories by anonymous people.


These are four distinctly different things. Readers can then decide what degree of make believe or hearsay should be attached to each category and each poster.

Better categories might be:

1.) Claims made by people running a "tout" service.

2.) Claims made by people NOT selling or monetizing anything.


Section 1) could be divided into 2 subsections. a) this century. b) 1900's. Maybe even a third subsection just for claims made in 1984.

[kewlJ]

Pictures are meaningless unless you have witnesses and people who can back it up. Anyone can get pictures of anything, but that doesn't mean they are truly their pics.
Anything can be faked.

Do you mean to say pictures of cash and chips spread out on a bed do NOT prove that person won those amounts? Say it isn't so.

What about pictures of someone in an RV. that can't be faked. That MUST mean the person owns that RV, no?

[kewlJ]

At various times during my challenges of people like Dawg and Singer, I would compare them to youtube scammers and people like Dan Druff's buddy Christopher Mitchell making similar bullshit claims. Dan Druff didn't like that comparison because there was no monetizing their claims.

Well hasn't redietz breeched that line now? While he isn't soliciting people directly on this forum, he is linking to his site that is soliciting "clients".

[coach belly]

The past is meaningless.

Results are an outcome of an action that took place in the past.

Results ascribe meaning to the past.

I've read current posts where red discusses what he is doing now, and how his results have been verified.

What are you doing now, what can you do now?

Everything you've reported is about the past, I don't recall anything being verified...has anything you've done been verified?

[kewlJ]

The past is meaningless.

I don't recall anything being verified...has anything you've done been verified?

Where is it required that anything be verified? This is a gambling internet forum, not a court of law. No one is on trial.

Redietz only chooses to verify cherry picked results from good years and contests because he uses that information to solicit clients and customers.

If everyone is required to verify every statement they make, you aren't going to have any real professional level players posting much. Too much risk. You might have a few recreational type or level players prove or verify a few things if it is important to them, that is all.

[coach belly]

Where is it required that anything be verified?

I didn't assert that anyone is required to verify anything, your comment is a deflection.

I asked if anything that he's claimed has been verified.

What is the issue about verification that would cause members not to post?

Some members agree to verify willingly, not because they are required to...obviously.

It seems that the lack of willingness to verify causes many of the disputes around here.

The liar's default is to assume others are lying.

Those who refuse to verify anything are eager to tear down good faith attempts of those who are willing to verify...is if harm would somehow come if you believed or ignored the attempt.

[MDawg]

Give it a rest. If there was something in the media someone would have found it. It never happened. When are you going to realize whatever you're trying to accomplish on this forum, good or bad, is just not working??

Gentlemen, at this point I'm starting to think kewl is possibly bipolar. When these people are in a manic state they are often delusional.

[redietz]

I have a great idea. Why don't we divide the forum into two parts? Maybe four parts, in fact.

We can have:

1) Verifiable wins versus casinos by people with real names.

2) Verifiable wins by anonymous people (in case you're wondering how that works, a sports monitor and a handicapper who wishes to remain anonymous or assigns the winning to an AI).

3) Non-verifiable stories by real people.

4) Non-verifiable stories by anonymous people.


These are four distinctly different things. Readers can then decide what degree of make believe or hearsay should be attached to each category and each poster.

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence. The only difference between the KewlJ(s)' stories (which is what they are) and MDawg's is that the KewlJ(s) attach "This is the way LV works" to their stories. MDawg attaches photos.

Do you consider people such as Anthony Curtis and other public figures who use a pen name anonymous?

Pictures are meaningless unless you have witnesses and people who can back it up. Anyone can get pictures of anything, but that doesn't mean they are truly their pics.
Anything can be faked.

The past is meaningless. What are you doing now, what can you do now?

My previous offers still stand, put your skill up vs me(you don't believe I have any so it's an easy win for you). If you don't want to reveal your pics, fine. Dan Druff/Mike/someone we both agree on gets access to our accounts. The winner(whoever makes the most profit) over x period of time wins 5k, 10k+, you choose. Somthing like that, if you are willing to put up your skill, we can hammer out the details and come up with something.

The past is meaningless? LOL. Where'd you come up with that? I thought you were an "AP?" I need to use that line when I head to the Pearly Gates for an evaluation. "Yes, God, my past is meaningless. Axelwolf says so."

No kidding, pictures are meaningless. If you actually read what I wrote, you can kind of get that gist. MDawg's photos don't mean much at all, but they mean more than KewlJ(s) spouting nonsense vis-a-vis his alleged bonusing profits at sports books. I've been bonusing (is that a verb?) at the same books the KewlJ (s) allegedly exploit so proficiently, and I've been at those books for decades. The KewlJ(s) either (1) don't bet very much or (2) hypnotize the software at those books into not recognizing what he's doing. Pick one.

Mr. Flowers isn't anonymous. If I have video of you, odds are you aren't anonymous. I say that as someone whose brother-in-law owned a chain of PI offices in the southwest and whose nephew is enrolled for an online forensics degree at Bloomsburg. Curt is using a pen name more than he's being "anonymous." And no -- I'm not on a first name basis with him. The bugger tossed me out of his office and threatened to call metro on me. But we made nice since then. We actually have parallel tracking life experiences in Las Vegas in many ways. He's a fine writer and editor. His editing style is a better version of mine. He has managed the very difficult accomplishment of making everything in the LVA sound as if it's coming from a single voice with a single attitude. It's really something. The entire tone and perspective is based on a middle-class, value-oriented voice.

Now, accountinquestion and you, for example, are anonymous. But if I bought this forum tomorrow, well, your chances of being anonymous to me by the end of the week are not great.

You be you, Axelwolf. You actually think you are God's gift to gambling. I see you as a niche-wrangling opportunist who can be shut down by any casino that halfway pays attention. But to each his own.

[MisterV]

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence.

LOL

It's always fun to watch laymen express opinions on thorny legal issues such as hearsay.

Mr. Dietz, I regret to inform you that your comment above is WRONG.

KJ's comment is NOT "hearsay" and would be fully admissible in a court of law.

As framed by you, the CORRECT analysis would be "what probative weight should be given to KJ's claims" and NOT "no court would allow him to say that during a trial."

A judge will pretty much always let someone testify as to what they claim to have done: that will be admitted into evidence as "direct testimony" and most certainly is NOT "hearsay.".

Note: just because something is admitted into evidence does NOT make it "true."

Please weigh in next on your cogent understanding of "The Rule Against Perpetuities:" that would rock.

[MDawg]

The kewlJ(s) have no idea what they wrote months ago or yesterday. Their whole self-presentation is inconsistent and ridiculous.

There is something bizarre about a poster who persistently debunks himself and then acts as if people should believe him. It's gotta be some kind of joke.

Perhaps if you worked harder to create a coherent narrative that didn't contradict itself or defy common sense...

Unfortunately, you change/insert major details, and then end up claiming things which sound unlikely/impossible, which then leads to people putting in the work to disprove it, which then leads to you first acting outraged for being questioned, and then ultimately admitting you fibbed.

It's been the same song for years. Nobody else seems to have this issue on these gambling/AP forums. Ever wonder why?

[DGenBen]

Who cares about verification or non verification?

Anyone with half a brain can figure out who is full of shit on here & who is not.

And the people that can’t figure it out would be just as easily misled by “verification”

[The Boz]

Who cares about verification or non verification?

Anyone with half a brain can figure out who is full of shit on here & who is not.

And the people that can’t figure it out would be just as easily misled by “verification”

Underrated post of the year so far right here!

[AxelWolf]

I have a great idea. Why don't we divide the forum into two parts? Maybe four parts, in fact.

We can have:

1) Verifiable wins versus casinos by people with real names.

2) Verifiable wins by anonymous people (in case you're wondering how that works, a sports monitor and a handicapper who wishes to remain anonymous or assigns the winning to an AI).

3) Non-verifiable stories by real people.

4) Non-verifiable stories by anonymous people.


These are four distinctly different things. Readers can then decide what degree of make believe or hearsay should be attached to each category and each poster.

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence. The only difference between the KewlJ(s)' stories (which is what they are) and MDawg's is that the KewlJ(s) attach "This is the way LV works" to their stories. MDawg attaches photos.

Do you consider people such as Anthony Curtis and other public figures who use a pen name anonymous?

Pictures are meaningless unless you have witnesses and people who can back it up. Anyone can get pictures of anything, but that doesn't mean they are truly their pics.
Anything can be faked.

The past is meaningless. What are you doing now, what can you do now?

My previous offers still stand, put your skill up vs me(you don't believe I have any so it's an easy win for you). If you don't want to reveal your pics, fine. Dan Druff/Mike/someone we both agree on gets access to our accounts. The winner(whoever makes the most profit) over x period of time wins 5k, 10k+, you choose. Somthing like that, if you are willing to put up your skill, we can hammer out the details and come up with something.

The past is meaningless? LOL. Where'd you come up with that? I thought you were an "AP?" I need to use that line when I head to the Pearly Gates for an evaluation. "Yes, God, my past is meaningless. Axelwolf says so."

No kidding, pictures are meaningless. If you actually read what I wrote, you can kind of get that gist. MDawg's photos don't mean much at all, but they mean more than KewlJ(s) spouting nonsense vis-a-vis his alleged bonusing profits at sports books. I've been bonusing (is that a verb?) at the same books the KewlJ (s) allegedly exploit so proficiently, and I've been at those books for decades. The KewlJ(s) either (1) don't bet very much or (2) hypnotize the software at those books into not recognizing what he's doing. Pick one.

Mr. Flowers isn't anonymous. If I have video of you, odds are you aren't anonymous. I say that as someone whose brother-in-law owned a chain of PI offices in the southwest and whose nephew is enrolled for an online forensics degree at Bloomsburg. Curt is using a pen name more than he's being "anonymous." And no -- I'm not on a first name basis with him. The bugger tossed me out of his office and threatened to call metro on me. But we made nice since then. We actually have parallel tracking life experiences in Las Vegas in many ways. He's a fine writer and editor. His editing style is a better version of mine. He has managed the very difficult accomplishment of making everything in the LVA sound as if it's coming from a single voice with a single attitude. It's really something. The entire tone and perspective is based on a middle-class, value-oriented voice.

Now, accountinquestion and you, for example, are anonymous. But if I bought this forum tomorrow, well, your chances of being anonymous to me by the end of the week are not great.

You be you, Axelwolf. You actually think you are God's gift to gambling. I see you as a niche-wrangling opportunist who can be shut down by any casino that halfway pays attention. But to each his own.

I'm not talking about KJ.

But, talk about niche-wrangling opertunits, I would say recruiting investors for college football betting seems like the perfect definition of a niche-wrangling opertunits. I don't think I'm God's gift to gambling, I never said or portrayed anything close to that. I know what I know, and how, and that's what I do.

[redietz]

The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence.

LOL

It's always fun to watch laymen express opinions on thorny legal issues such as hearsay.

Mr. Dietz, I regret to inform you that your comment above is WRONG.

KJ's comment is NOT "hearsay" and would be fully admissible in a court of law.

As framed by you, the CORRECT analysis would be "what probative weight should be given to KJ's claims" and NOT "no court would allow him to say that during a trial."

A judge will pretty much always let someone testify as to what they claim to have done: that will be admitted into evidence as "direct testimony" and most certainly is NOT "hearsay.".

Note: just because something is admitted into evidence does NOT make it "true."

Please weigh in next on your cogent understanding of "The Rule Against Perpetuities:" that would rock.

Not to challenge your legal expertise, MrV, but could you point to the post where I said, "no court would allow him (meaning KewlJ(s)) to say that during a trial." My neurons have aged considerably, and sometimes I get confused as to what I actually wrote. So please humor me. I appreciate it.

[AxelWolf]

The past is meaningless.

I've read current posts where red discusses what he is doing now, and how his results have been verified.

How so? In emails, he sends his investors? that has been verified. What's been verified? All records from the past have been verified?

[MisterV]

Not to challenge your legal expertise, MrV, but could you point to the post where I said, "no court would allow him (meaning KewlJ(s)) to say that during a trial." My neurons have aged considerably, and sometimes I get confused as to what I actually wrote. So please humor me. I appreciate it.

Please do feel free to challenge or question my comments.

I was responding to your characterizing KJ's statements as being "basically all hearsay."

So far as me claiming that you said "no court would allow him (meaning KewlJ(s)) to say that during a trial: I never said that you made that specific claim.

I guess I confused you by using quotation marks for emphasis as opposed to attribution: mea culpa.

Were his comments "hearsay" then the court would sustain a hearsay objection and disallow the testimony: that is the crux of my response.

[coach belly]

How so? In emails, he sends his investors? that has been verified.

Yes

What's been verified? All records from the past have been verified?

Yes

It appears that you've been reading the same posts that I have.

[redietz]

How so? In emails, he sends his investors? that has been verified.

Yes

What's been verified? All records from the past have been verified?

Yes

It appears that you've been reading the same posts that I have.

Evidently Axelwolf has no friggin' idea what a monitor is, or how someone could post plays in a newsletter appearing on literally thousands of newsstands, or how someone in something like The Wise Guys Contest for 30 years, with thousands of people seeing the two-games-a-week, can't really make shit up.

That's fine. I don't expect people to understand the actual history of the sports handicapping business or know anything about it. It is a little bizarre, though, for people who don't know this stuff to make declarative statements. It speaks to the classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.