Originally Posted by
redietz
First of all, none of my claims are "baloney." Every single thing I have posted here is complete fact. Indisputable fact. Go ahead and find something you think is "baloney." You will be wrong.
Second, the opening year with McCusker, I got shelled to the tune of 45% or thereabouts. I don't dispute that. How or why could I? I guess I could say I was young, first year professionally, under pressure, didn't know what I was doing, and McCusker record is always 1-3 points less than reality because of his rules, blah blah blah. None of that would be correct. I didn't have a good handle on what was happening, and I lost seven or eight games I should have won (by my formal reckoning), so I wound up losing pretty decisively.
Now, any sane, halfway intelligent person would ask, if those were my results, why did I soldier on the following year (and decade) and do so well cumulatively despite that first year debacle? Is it because I'm dumb as a rock? LOL. Well, maybe.
But the truth (undeniable, as some might say) is that the previous year to my McCusker debut, while writing a column for the Valley View Citizen-Standard, I had been phenomenal, 80-35 ATS in college football. Less than phenomenal in the NFL at 50-55 ATS. So the fact is I had a track record stretching back from when I was 13, and an ATS track record stretching back to when I was 18. And I was coming off one of the finest college football handicapping seasons in history, all in a weekly column published for everyone to see (I actually got some fan mail, which was crazy).
But, and here's why I didn't freak out over my inaugural losing season with McCusker, I realized that 80-35 ATS record had at least a dozen winners that should have lost. I had been lucky as hell, and I knew it. So when the next year-long statistical results whacked me with seven or eight losers that should have won, I couldn't really complain. And, if you'll notice, I didn't.
I also, as McCusker noted, returned all subscription fees for that losing year. All of them. Now go and find another handicapper, 22 years old or 72 years old, who did that.
Note to the Liar, KewlJ: I stated in a closing definitive paragraph standing alone so as to be read, that Kim Lee is not a sock. The post was, I believe, 370 of the Bob Dietz thread. I couldn't have stated it any more clearly. So yeah, that was an Integrity-type thing to do, as opposed to your blatant lying about if or whether I had done it. Your problem, as usual, is that you bullshit, and paraphrase bullshit, and summarize bullshit, and none of it ever checks out through direct quotes or actual facts. You just do not tell the truth. Maybe it's an "AP" thing, you know, "misdirection" and all that -- LOL.