Is Sports Betting AP Play?

[OneHitWonder]

+1. see highlighted

P.S. I guess I got up also Dan's skirt. Maybe, it's no so easy waiting to win something.

For what? For trolling! You contribute nothing of value to any one. You have turned into just another anti-AP troll. Hell, now you are even trolling the owner of the site.

Look, Dan miscalculated the odds of 18 straight yo's, over in the 18 yo's thread where Alan met his Waterloo. Fact. Simple calculation. Fact. Poker player. Fact. What's wrong with that picture? And, if you guys, AP or SP or whatever type of casino customer, can't handle someone who says not to gamble, but who, at the same time, enjoys watching those who do, and who try to prove me wrong, then I guess this place has become another house of Shacky. Nobody is ever going to post anything decent here or there unless there's a modicum of free speech.

What do I care about banning people? You don't have to do that to win an argument. It's about the seventh or eighth psychological defence mechanism from people who are losing the argument. (Crystal clear in the developments from this thread after I challenged Mickey to the same noted bet as he offered me. And up to the point that the quoted conditions of said bet began to change erratically. If I could win said bet w/o running from building to building, then why not? It's the money that counts here.) I think that you guys are just losing face or something. A sign of a degenerate gambler. When you can't lose something, however small, without it tearing you down.

[OneHitWonder]

It's just not that hard to see people's agenda. For several months, OneHitWonder posted one post over and over and over.

Not true. No thought to read further.

[OneHitWonder]

I think that you should just take RS__'s advice, and go away.

P.S. The tenth is where everyone says they are not coming back until so-and-so has been banned. So amazing just how any one person can take over a free and public board.

[redietz]

I don't have a problem with someone telling people to not gamble. It does seem like an odd way to spend one's time -- telling people on gambling sites to not gamble. My personal preference would be to go to hardcore religious sites and explain why people shouldn't pray, but to each his own.

However, OneHit takes things a bit further. He calls people out as liars with no evidence that they are lying. Now, personally, I don't know if mickey does what he claims, so I can't testify in court for him, but his story does hang together. Now how someone could proclaim that mickey's making things up, I don't know. OneHit makes proclamations without evidence, which I guess is my issue with him. The entire "billions spent" quote from OneHit with regards to the casino industry allegedly knowing how to circumvent all APs or the naive "why don't they have backers?" lines (they do) highlight that OneHit doesn't have all of the facts, and really doesn't care that he doesn't have all of the facts. He was dead wrong on two basic proclamations (not speculations, mind you, but proclamations). So why would a poster just proclaim stuff he doesn't really know?

I don't really know, but my default guess is that OneHit has taken a beating from casinos and is in "if I can't win, nobody can" mode, which is pretty common. So yes, OneHit, it must be true. Everyone is dumber than you and has less expertise than you, so if you have not won in casinos, it must mean the APs are degenerate losers. I suggest everyone just salute OneHit for his deep insights and carry on.

P.S. Casino gaming has been ubiquitous long enough now that a full generation has been exposed all over the country. As usual, I'll recommend reading "Addiction by Design" by anthropologist Natasha Schull. There are going to be increasing numbers of people who cannot handle their own gambling addiction and history and whose self perception can't handle the fact that other individuals have solved and made a profit from certain aspects of gambling. These people are not going to publicly beat themselves up, and they find no real outlet or satisfaction in writing anti-gambling op eds. Instead, they'll go after anybody who claims to have beaten the games.

[mickeycrimm]

Honestly, though, who would or did troll Shacky's Spanish thread? If Alan has a girl in Paris, why not one in South America for a mere "troll" like me? I thought it an apt reply to a poster who was probably pulling our legs. Most of the first time posters who introduce themselves with odd questions are. Why the heck would anyone here even consider moving to South America? Lol. Carry on with the gambling, though, have fun. It's great not to have to, for any and every reason, and to watch you guys try.


P.S. I guess I got up also Dan's skirt. Maybe, it's no so easy waiting to win something.

Ban onehitblunder.

For what? Politely telling a new guy not to start gambling? With supporting statistics about who finds a cure for it. And exposing your "proof" of $500 a day as a load? Holy crap! Why are you guys so defensive?

Ban bitchpunkblunder.

[MisterV]

Please point out which forum rule OHW has violated; absent a violation of a rule, what basis would there be to ban him, other than the fact some people view him as a pain in the ass?

[kewlJ]

Please point out which forum rule OHW has violated; absent a violation of a rule, what basis would there be to ban him, other than the fact some people view him as a pain in the ass?

I know that YOU love this type of stuff Mr v. You sir are a drama queen. You enjoyed the sites that were set up just for flaming and trolling and drama.

But this is NOT your site. This is supposed to be a site about gambling and vegas topic discussions and that includes guys that play with an advantage sharing their experiences. While Dan is a very absentee owner and I don't think takes this forum seriously enough, he DID say when he banned Singer that he had hopes that would open the door to more participation by new members. He mentioned that he had privately heard from some members reluctant to participate under that type of environment (that you love).

So it isn't so much as did someone like OHW break a written rule. It's just a general, why is he here? When you can clearly and easily see that someone's participation is just to disrupt and tear down the site, then he should be asked to leave. Redietz gave a good example, in someone going to a Christian site and bad mouthing Christianity or praising Satin. Similarly someone going to a Nascar site and bad mouthing Nascar, shouldn't be tolerated. If your goal is to just be disruptive....go somewhere else.

[Alan Mendelson]

The patients now rule the asylum.

[OneHitWonder]

I don't have a problem with someone telling people to not gamble. It does seem like an odd way to spend one's time -- telling people on gambling sites to not gamble. My personal preference would be to go to hardcore religious sites and explain why people shouldn't pray, but to each his own.

However, OneHit takes things a bit further. He calls people out as liars with no evidence that they are lying. Now, personally, I don't know if mickey does what he claims, so I can't testify in court for him, but his story does hang together. Now how someone could proclaim that mickey's making things up, I don't know. OneHit makes proclamations without evidence, which I guess is my issue with him. The entire "billions spent" quote from OneHit with regards to the casino industry allegedly knowing how to circumvent all APs or the naive "why don't they have backers?" lines (they do) highlight that OneHit doesn't have all of the facts, and really doesn't care that he doesn't have all of the facts. He was dead wrong on two basic proclamations (not speculations, mind you, but proclamations). So why would a poster just proclaim stuff he doesn't really know?

I don't really know, but my default guess is that OneHit has taken a beating from casinos and is in "if I can't win, nobody can" mode, which is pretty common. So yes, OneHit, it must be true. Everyone is dumber than you and has less expertise than you, so if you have not won in casinos, it must mean the APs are degenerate losers. I suggest everyone just salute OneHit for his deep insights and carry on.

P.S. Casino gaming has been ubiquitous long enough now that a full generation has been exposed all over the country. As usual, I'll recommend reading "Addiction by Design" by anthropologist Natasha Schull. There are going to be increasing numbers of people who cannot handle their own gambling addiction and history and whose self perception can't handle the fact that other individuals have solved and made a profit from certain aspects of gambling. These people are not going to publicly beat themselves up, and they find no real outlet or satisfaction in writing anti-gambling op eds. Instead, they'll go after anybody who claims to have beaten the games.

You still refuse to take it one specific claim at a time. Okay, I'll start with my "billions of dollars" claim. My exact words in the post (numbered 303 in this thread) are,

Who really has? Mass, casino gambling is about the appearance of a chance to win. What the players think they know is pure baloney put or left there by much shrewder souls than them. Billions in research, and decades of empirical findings versus a few flighty and touchy-feely persons on a few ever-dying internet message boards.

Where did I write that the casinos directly paid that much for their own research? Now, I'm not going to get into latitudes of the various definitions or connotations of the word research, which are extensive. I don't have to. Even the existing countermeasures against casino employees and players constitute a form of research, as do the many, many new databasing and analytical techniques used to profile, deter and capture casino criminals. The jury is still out on a lot of that stuff. (Just some stuff I have read about, and bookmarked here and there.) However, here are just a very, very few examples of the amounts of monies spent on plain, ordinary gambling research.

The few research grants in just this one link sum to over 2 million dollars? http://www.ncrg.org/research-center/...project-grants

A couple of other links, to give the reader a better idea of the basic questions asked about gambling. And I haven't even touched upon the economic and political studies of gambling.

https://uwaterloo.ca/gambling-research-lab/

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/pgrg/index.htm

Red, as I read a bit more of your post above, I see some words here and there that I simply do not remember having written. Please quote me directly, in the future. Or fuck off!

[OneHitWonder]

The patients now rule the asylum.

Maybe, in reality, we have them where we want them?

[coach belly]

Please point out which forum rule OHW has violated; absent a violation of a rule, what basis would there be to ban him, other than the fact some people view him as a pain in the ass?

You are begging Dan to ban someone who broke no rules? Show me a rule that I broke?

[mickeycrimm]

The patients now rule the asylum.

Are you telling us that you didn't lobby Dan to get rid of Kewlj?

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=OneHitWonder;55970]

Who really has? Mass, casino gambling is about the appearance of a chance to win. What the players think they know is pure baloney put or left there by much shrewder souls than them. Billions in research, and decades of empirical findings versus a few flighty and touchy-feely persons

Okay, you got me there onehit. I'm a sucker for an appearance of a chance to win. So could you do me a favor. Could you talk to the shrewder souls and get them to put in some $5 denom 10/8 Jacks or Better for me. That would definitely sucker me into playing. I'll bring my whole bankroll and throw it on the line. They can have their way with me. I'll play until I'm broke, or....or....or....something else. I have a lot of friends who would like to play 10/8 Jacks to. The shrewder souls could get rich off of us. So do your best to persuade them for us, okay? Thank you for your cooperation.

[mickeycrimm]

+1. see highlighted

P.S. I guess I got up also Dan's skirt. Maybe, it's no so easy waiting to win something.

For what? For trolling! You contribute nothing of value to any one. You have turned into just another anti-AP troll. Hell, now you are even trolling the owner of the site.

Look, Dan miscalculated the odds of 18 straight yo's, over in the 18 yo's thread where Alan met his Waterloo. Fact. Simple calculation. Fact. Poker player. Fact. What's wrong with that picture? And, if you guys, AP or SP or whatever type of casino customer, can't handle someone who says not to gamble, but who, at the same time, enjoys watching those who do, and who try to prove me wrong, then I guess this place has become another house of Shacky. Nobody is ever going to post anything decent here or there unless there's a modicum of free speech.

What do I care about banning people? You don't have to do that to win an argument. It's about the seventh or eighth psychological defence mechanism from people who are losing the argument. (Crystal clear in the developments from this thread after I challenged Mickey to the same noted bet as he offered me. And up to the point that the quoted conditions of said bet began to change erratically. If I could win said bet w/o running from building to building, then why not? It's the money that counts here.) I think that you guys are just losing face or something. A sign of a degenerate gambler. When you can't lose something, however small, without it tearing you down.

I gave you the exact terms I gave Argentino. You are the one who ran and hid. If you are serious then post your $10,000 with Alan as you suggested you would do. Then get back to me.

[coach belly]

You are the one who ran and hid.

Not this again...

The wormm's terms will eventually mandate a trip to Montana, even though he never stipulates that in the original challenge.

It's always an add-on after interest is shown, when the wormm knows full well that nobody is coming to Montana to call him out on his bullshit.

Hey wormm, is there any gambling challenge that you will take outside of Montana?

You just visited how many casinos? So let's see what you can do outside of your comfort zone.

[MisterV]

I know that YOU love this type of stuff Mr v. You sir are a drama queen. You enjoyed the sites that were set up just for flaming and trolling and drama...But this is NOT your site.

Nor is it your site.

Many forums have individuals who espouse contrarian viewpoints, which is fine.

So OHW thinks alleged AP's are full of shit: bully for him.

Let him say it, and explain why he feels that way.

Then you can respond, and hopefully out of the crucible of conflict "the truth" can be found.

[mickeycrimm]

You are the one who ran and hid.

Not this again...

The wormm's terms will eventually mandate a trip to Montana, even though he never stipulates that in the original challenge.

It's always an add-on after interest is shown, when the wormm knows full well that nobody is coming to Montana to call him out on his bullshit.

Hey wormm, is there any gambling challenge that you will take outside of Montana?

You just visited how many casinos? So let's see what you can do outside of your comfort zone.

Fuck off and die bitch. You want troll motherfucker? You got troll. Let's troll, bitch. Get your fucking troll on, cocksucker. Let's troll this motherfucking site down, cunt. If it's a free rein to troll here then let's get this fucking troll train rolling you fat bellied son of a bitch.

[OneHitWonder]

You are the one who ran and hid.

Not this again...

The wormm's terms will eventually mandate a trip to Montana, even though he never stipulates that in the original challenge.

It's always an add-on after interest is shown, when the wormm knows full well that nobody is coming to Montana to call him out on his bullshit.

Hey wormm, is there any gambling challenge that you will take outside of Montana?

You just visited how many casinos? So let's see what you can do outside of your comfort zone.

Fuck off and die bitch. You want troll motherfucker? You got troll. Let's troll, bitch. Get your fucking troll on, cocksucker. Let's troll this motherfucking site down, cunt. If it's a free rein to troll here then let's get this fucking troll train rolling you fat bellied son of a bitch.

Can I say how funny this is without fear of being called a troll and banned? Sleep well, Mickey, it's a new day, tomorrow.

[mickeycrimm]

I know that YOU love this type of stuff Mr v. You sir are a drama queen. You enjoyed the sites that were set up just for flaming and trolling and drama...But this is NOT your site.

Nor is it your site.

Many forums have individuals who espouse contrarian viewpoints, which is fine.

So OHW thinks alleged AP's are full of shit: bully for him.

Let him say it, and explain why he feels that way.

Then you can respond, and hopefully out of the crucible of conflict "the truth" can be found.

LarryS with you as his endorser ruined Gambling Forums. Now you want to endorse canthitblunder while he does the same thing here. There are plenty of sites to do it on the net. Why do you have to fucking do it here? Nothing serious can be discussed as long as the trolls dominate the site and turn it into a shithole. Get a fucking life for Christ's sake.

[redietz]

I hate to question the logic of our dear OneHit, but it has occurred to me that if casinos spent "billions" on research so their games are impregnable to APs, then at some point either the games were beatable or the casinos wasted one helluva lot of money. LOL. So now, after spending unspecified "billions," OneHit's argument is that the casinos have solved the issue, and all current APs are fibbing. That's a tad imprecise. I'd like to know, so I sleep better, was the problem solved after the first half billion in research, or the second, or the third, or is it possibly an ongoing investment casinos make to assure that nobody's walking off with their shekels?

If you're going to criticize gambling, it might be helpful to have some blessed idea what you're talking about.