Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Box I'm no human punching bag this time. I'm punching holes right through your cellophane body armor.
You see... the majority of the world doesnt believe in the supernatural that's being vomited here.
I'm trying to understand if Alan is employing simple and inappropriate straw man arguments here.
Like if someone asks me if DarkOz is doing what he says, I kind of roll my eyes. Or if somebody says their team made $25 million. I say, great, have at it. And then Alan places those things front and center as Exhibits A and B as to why most of the "advantage play" presented here doesn't and can't work. Those examples are at WoV, where a lot of nonsense is tolerated and even celebrated.
Saying advantage play doesn't work because DarkOz and MDawg make shit up is silly. It's like saying because someone else claims to run a four minute mile, you're saying that I can't run a six minute mile.
Almost all of the mickey crimm angles make sense. Most of the stuff presented here makes sense. If you consider sports betting a form of AP, and I suspect it will increasingly be considered as such with legalization and bonuses and comps now attached to it, there's no question games of opinion can be beaten. It's hard and it takes a lot of work and it takes expertise, but it can be done.
Rejection of individual advantage players is one thing. Rejection of advantage play principles is another.
You'll notice that Alan didn't challenge mickey crimm's specifics. Or my specifics (he'd get another package). That's because mickey could take him on tour for a week and debunk anti-advantage play arguments in real time.
I guess I don't get the whole idea of picking easy targets and using those to debunk advantage play in general. That is classic straw man argumentation.