While I appreciate blackhole's experience and cynicism, I'd like to point out that experience and cynicism aren't always correct and don't always draw the correct conclusions.

For example, blackhole's cynicism pointed in the direction of "APs" is, I think, reasonable. However, I bet sports, and I've accumulated such a statistically unlikely record over 40 years that I personally undermine the entire theory that there are no winning APs, if you accept sports betting as a form of AP. So while I understand that 99.9% of sports bettors are mirages (therefore our moniker, "Integrity Sports"), there are 50-100 individuals or teams of people in this country who can do real long-term damage to sports books. Plus we have partners/clients who see exactly what we are doing day-to-day, so I couldn't get away with saying this unless they had seen it.

Similarly, blackhole draws what seems like a generically reasonable conclusion regarding Alan, but the point is he doesn't really know. He's opining.

Well, I don't see the point of opining here. What's the upside? Reveal Alan to be someone he doesn't present himself to be? Do you really have the data to make that case? Do you really have an intellectual ability or perspective beyond other forum members that uniquely qualifies you to call Alan out?

I doubt it.

Unless you're a telepath, it's just opining and calling someone out for the fun of it. It accomplishes nothing. Does it really inform anybody? Okay, blackhole doesn't like the saccharin pats on the back Alan gets here. So what? I don't love them, either. But people give family and friends saccharin pats on the back all of the time. Do we all need to get called out for it every time we do it?