Gamblers are Notorious Liars

Quote: DRich

I don't think 200x largest bet is a huge bankroll. A $300 max bet means you would need a $60,000 bankroll. That doesn't seem very big to me.

Typical table max at a $100. table is 10K. Some will go 20K.

20K x 200x is actually $4,000,000. which you are saying "doesn't seem very big."

So you're actually saying that even a four million bankroll is inadequate for a $100. table? not even just a million.

Quote: MDawg

Typical table max at a $100. table is 10K. Some will go 20K.

20K x 200x is actually $4,000,000. which you are saying "doesn't seem very big."

So you're actually saying that even a four million bankroll is inadequate for a $100. table, not even just a million.

Obviously you know successful professional card counters that are spreading $100 to $20,000. You have no clue what you are talking about on this subject.

I always used to spread table min to table max at blackjack. How do you think I beat the hell out of them so much? For whatever reason, it worked for me consistently. I've mentioned the circumstances where I felt it was justified here more than once. And it worked almost all the time. Sometimes it actually worked for days on end, all the time. That was before I got banned for a period (handicapped to a 3X spread) - they really hated someone who lost only table mins and won all his table maxes.

And be mindful of the "no clue" that's a personal insult. If you can't keep it civil you may go back to your theories instead of talking with someone who has actually done it like me. Again, some of you guys crack me up sometimes. You argue that something may not be done with someone who has actually done it. What's the point? of discussing this further.

You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, so let's just keep it to talking about those things, nicely. This topic, you may go back to thinking what you wish. If you're right, you're right...right? Why would anything I say matter?

Quote: MDawg

they really hated someone who lost only table mins and won all his table maxes.

Such a statement is really a red flag. This is just NOT the way card counting works. If only it was!

When a player is placing their max bet, they have only a slight advantage, maybe 2%. And actually you will lose more hands than you win. Few players understand this. Most mistaken think what you just posted that they win some majority of max bets. NOT THE CASE. That slimmest of advantage comes from a few more blackjack paid @ 150% and to a lesser degree a little more success on double down bets....but mostly it is just a slight increase in blackjack at higher counts.

Quote: MDawg

I always used to spread table min to table max at blackjack. How do you think I beat the hell out of them so much? For whatever reason, it worked for me consistently. I've mentioned the circumstances where I felt it was justified here more than once. And it worked almost all the time. Sometimes it actually worked for days on end, all the time. That was before I got banned for a period (handicapped to a 3X spread) - they really hated someone who lost only table mins and won all his table maxes.

And be mindful of the "no clue" that's a personal insult. If you can't keep it civil you may go back to your theories instead of talking with someone who has actually done it like me. Again, some of you guys crack me up sometimes. You argue that something may not be done with someone who has actually done it. What's the point? of discussing this further.

You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, so let's just keep it to talking about those things, nicely. This topic, you may go back to thinking what you wish. If you're right, you're right...right? Why would anything I say matter?

If you ask a child who has learned addition but not multiplication what 2×2 is they will almost certainly tell you four.

Have them show you how they arrived at four and they will ADD the 2 and 2.

They arrived at the correct answer. But they did it wrong.

I'm not doubting you succeeded in your methods of minimum to Max table spread. But DRich is pointing out that success or not, you did the wrong thing. Something a card counter would not do.

Why can't you just say something without mixing a veiled insulting homily in with it? 😃 I'm used to it by now with you but it detracts from whatever you are trying to say and will eventually get you WOV suspended again with anyone who chooses to engage tit for tat with you.

Anyway, as I said, If you're right, you're right...right? Why would anything I say matter?

I understand what DRich and KewlJ are saying, but they're not the be all and end all of card counters. KewlJ seems to also think that the casinos might cheat, and I've never had to entertain for even a moment such a ridiculous thought. Anyway, there are situations I have found myself in, where the mathematics justify a jump in bet more than the usual. And for whatever reason, almost each time I have counted and observed that situation, it has worked out for me. (Other than getting the boot for having done that and won too consistently.) Maybe I'm just consistently blessed and luckier than these guys, who knows. 😇

Quote: MDawg

I always used to spread table min to table max at blackjack. ...
... they really hated someone who lost only table mins and won all his table maxes.

I'll accept that by spreading in that way, you MAY have won big and often. May even have ended up with a profit. But I can see how your claimed style of playing would make your story sound incredible to other BJ players. You don't sound like a professional BJ player to me.

Quote:

And be mindful of the "no clue" that's a personal insult.

It might have stung your ego, but on this occasion, I don't agree that it's a personal insult. YMMV.

Quote:

Again, some of you guys crack me up sometimes.

A few members crack me up, too.

Quote:

You argue that something may not be done with someone who has actually done it.

If guys can't reconcile your claimed skill with your claimed outcomes, that's an interesting topic. So long as no-one calls you a liar, or other names, I reckon you have broad enough shoulders and a big enough ego to debate with them or ignore them.

Quote:

You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, so let's just keep it to talking about those things, nicely. This topic, you may go back to thinking what you wish. If you're right, you're right...right? Why would anything I say matter?

I agree.

Quote:

And for whatever reason, almost each time I have counted and observed that situation, it has worked out for me. (Other than getting the boot for having done that and won too consistently.) Maybe I'm just consistently blessed and luckier than these guys, who knows. 😇

Luck trumps skill. Maybe you have one or both. Like you say "For whatever reason"

So what count do you need to win a majority of hands instead of just hitting the 21's on steroids?

Quote: ChumpChange

So what count do you need to win a majority of hands instead of just hitting the 21's on steroids?

Better if Wizard or one of the other Math guys answers this, but I don't believe there is such a count, or if there is, it is such a monsterously high count that you see it once in a lifetime.

Here is the way it works. At a count of zero, which is a neutral deck, the dealer should win something like 49%, the player 42% and 9% pushes. (I am going by memory, so these numbers may be off slightly). So with the player winning only 42% of hands, he is still only at less than a 1% advantage, because of the bonus payout for players from blackjack. Think about that for a second. Win 42% of hands and still only at less that 1% disadvantage.

So at higher true counts, the win and loss percentage really don't change much. Maybe the player win 43% in higher counts, but it really doesn't change much. What changes is the player will receive more blackjack at a 150% payoff because there are more 10 value cards and aces remaining in the deck. . Not a lot more but slightly more, Just enough to flip that paper thin advantage from house to player. By the way, the dealer will get more blackjack as well, but he doesn't get a 150% bonus. So the player is still losing more hands but because of the slight increase in blackjack, is at a slight advantage.

So like I said, I don't think there is a count high enough that can result in the player winning more than he loses. But maybe at some extreme high count, a count so high there will be lots of 20 vs 20 pushes. I don't know. like I said, better someone else should answer that, but if there is such a count it is rare....I mean once in forever rare.

Look, if we won a majority of our max bets at high counts, I wouldn't have the kind of weeks that I had last week. There would be no variance....just consistent wins. But that is not the ay it works. I am not questioning or challenging MDawg's results or claims, but that statement about winning all his Max bets is really that of someone who doesn't understand how card counting works.

Quote: OnceDear

You don't sound like a professional BJ player to me.

I don't recall MDawg ever claiming to be a professional BJ player.

What's your point with that statement?

Quote: DRich

Obviously you know successful professional card counters that are spreading $100 to $20,000. You have no clue what you are talking about on this subject.

I'm going to let the "no clue" comment go with a warning to be mindful of the personal insult rule. If you are going to make a vague comment like that, I would prefer to see it substantiated with some evidence next time.

Quote: OnceDear

I'll accept that by spreading in that way, you MAY have won big and often. May even have ended up with a profit. But I can see how your claimed style of playing would make your story sound incredible to other BJ players. You don't sound like a professional BJ player to me.
It might have stung your ego, but on this occasion, I don't agree that it's a personal insult. YMMV.
A few members crack me up, too.
If guys can't reconcile your claimed skill with your claimed outcomes, that's an interesting topic. So long as no-one calls you a liar, or other names, I reckon you have broad enough shoulders and a big enough ego to debate with them or ignore them.
I agree.
Luck trumps skill. Maybe you have one or both. Like you say "For whatever reason"

"Luck trumps skill?"

LOL. Yeah, on Tuesdays in the Twilight Zone.

Quote: redietz

Quote: OnceDear

I'll accept that by spreading in that way, you MAY have won big and often. May even have ended up with a profit. But I can see how your claimed style of playing would make your story sound incredible to other BJ players. You don't sound like a professional BJ player to me.
It might have stung your ego, but on this occasion, I don't agree that it's a personal insult. YMMV.
A few members crack me up, too.
If guys can't reconcile your claimed skill with your claimed outcomes, that's an interesting topic. So long as no-one calls you a liar, or other names, I reckon you have broad enough shoulders and a big enough ego to debate with them or ignore them.
I agree.
Luck trumps skill. Maybe you have one or both. Like you say "For whatever reason"

"Luck trumps skill?"

LOL. Yeah, on Tuesdays in the Twilight Zone.

I think Oncedear is referring to how luck Trump's skill to give a misleading appearance

Like when I saw a guy who hit on hard 19 and pulled a 2, then yelled he knew what he was doing (and yes I actually witnessed that).

That same hand I made the proper basic strategy move and lost. And the guy kept insisting he had just shown me how to properly play

Quote: DRich

If it is $100 minimum you shouldn't be playing with a $60k bankroll. Find a better game.

I have a bigger bankroll but even 200 x top bet is not enough because one will need to have a living expense bank account through the bad year of counting with no other source of income bc one will be doing this full time For the ev to materialize.

Quote: Wizard

I'm going to let the "no clue" comment go with a warning to be mindful of the personal insult rule. If you are going to make a vague comment like that, I would prefer to see it substantiated with some evidence next time.

Quote: MDawg

I always used to spread table min to table max at blackjack. How do you think I beat the hell out of them so much? For whatever reason, it worked for me consistently. I've mentioned the circumstances where I felt it was justified here more than once. And it worked almost all the time. Sometimes it actually worked for days on end, all the time. That was before I got banned for a period (handicapped to a 3X spread) - they really hated someone who lost only table mins and won all his table maxes.

So now you're letting statements like this on the forum basically go unchallenged. That certainly seems to fly in the face of what this forum is supposed to be about.

If someone told you they were a card counter followed by MDawg's comment what would you really think?

You're notorious for not reading much of the Forum, but you(and OD) seem to be all over any slight infraction someone makes towards Mdawg.

Quote: AxelWolf

So now you're letting statements like this on the forum basically go unchallenged. That certainly seems to fly in the face of what this forum is supposed to be about.

If someone told you they were a card counter followed by MDawg's comment what would you really think?

You're notorious for not reading much of the Forum, but you(and OD) seem to be all over any slight infraction someone makes towards Mdawg.

Axelwolf, you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. We're in a post-truth world on a post-political forum. Makes sense.

Besides, there's an easy fix. Just rename the site, "Wizard of Luck."

Easy peasy.

Quote: redietz

We're in a post-truth world

No we are not. There has to be a point where reality matters. And the reality is in this day and age, NO ONE is going to get away with table minimum to table max.....IF THEY ARE COUNTING and playing with an advantage.

At that level, a player will have an immediate evaluation and will last about 5 minutes. Make that 10 minutes, only because the casino will want to be damn sure they aren't tossing someone just randomly spreading and not spreading with the count.

I am not calling anybody a liar, but this just is not reality.

Quote: kewlj

No we are not. There has to be a point where reality matters. And the reality is in this day and age, NO ONE is going to get away with table minimum to table max.....IF THEY ARE COUNTING and playing with an advantage.

At that level, a player will have an immediate evaluation and will last about 5 minutes. Make that 10 minutes, only because the casino will want to be damn sure they aren't tossing someone just randomly spreading and not spreading with the count.

I am not calling anybody a liar, but this just is not reality.

we got to love these guys that can go from table minimum to table Max while counting cards all while consistently winning and they are like, nah I'd rather just play -EV Baccarat.

Axelwolf and kewlj,

You two obviously did not get the memo. You're both fired!

Everything is scripted. In a post truth world, it's all about ratings.

As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

While we're on the subject of gamblers notorious for one thing or another, I have reviewed a video available on Youtube:

https://wizardofvegas.com/article/cheating-vegas-review/

This video is titled The Cat and Mouse Game---Cheating Vegas.

The video is split into four segments, all of which I expected to be about different forms of cheating at table games. That's especially true when considering The Cat and Mouse Game part of the title.

That's not what happened, though. The four segments consist of:

-Counterfeiting Casino Chips
-Straight up Armed Robbery
-Dealer Collusion at Pai-Gow Poker (Yay, actual cheating at a game!)
-Breaking into slot machines/triggering false jackpots.

So, only one segment actually involves actively playing a game.

If you wish, read my review and decide whether or not the documentary is worth nearly fifty minutes of your time.

WARNING: The review is loaded with spoilers.

Quote: redietz

In a post truth world

I don't think there is any such "period" as the "post truth world." You made that up. 🤓

I know there's the postmodern era. And now we're in the post postmodern era since the start of the 21st Century.

I know HST utilized what became known as "Gonzo journalism" during the postmodern era by describing actual events while interjecting fictional gags and characters.

Quote: MDawg

There was a really cool website page up years ago entitled "In Search of Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" or some such. It investigated the possibility of whether the places and events HST wrote about in his Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream were factually verifiable. What it found, in sum, was that yes, there was something like a Soundproof Suite at the Mint (now the Horsheshoe), yes Debbie Reynolds was playing in Vegas at some point that year in 1971, yes there was a Las Vegas District Attorney's convention on dangerous drugs, and so on, but that these events were spaced over the course of MONTHS such that they could not have happened neatly in the course of several days as depicted in the novel. That is Gonzo journalism - stretching the truth.

I'm not doing that here. When I write about going to the Cult concert or Duran Duran at such and such date and even post copies of the front row tickets, or describe and post pictures of a certain suite we stayed in, or the play by play, blow by blow, wins or losses of my gambling sessions, these are are all hard plain facts. As PeeWee Herman said, It's all true. "Every second of it."

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.

I suggest you stick to describing your own writing. You appear to be saying that your own writing is scripted, full of untruths and all about ratings. Fine, thanks for the admission.

If you're implying that about my writing, I take offense at that implication and you need to stop saying the same insulting thing over and over without listening to what others are saying. Your agenda is not mine.

On the other hand if you mean that my writing is poetic, in the way that Quintin Tarantino describes his scripts (well, anyway, his early ones...he's really gone downhill) as in "It's not poetry, but it's close!" (direct Tarantino quote about his Pulp Fiction script) why thank you! But poetic or not, MDawg's writing is the plain truth! If I write that I used to jump between table min and table max that is exactly what I used to do!

Quote: redietz

Axelwolf and kewlj,

You two obviously did not get the memo. You're both fired!

Everything is scripted. In a post truth world, it's all about ratings.

As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

I've been telling everybody IT'S been all scripted from like day one.

Remember B79? He had pictures and all.

Quote: jjjoooggg

I have a bigger bankroll but even 200 x top bet is not enough because one will need to have a living expense bank account through the bad year of counting with no other source of income bc one will be doing this full time For the ev to materialize.

I agree. The playing bankroll has to be separate from the living expenses. When the playing bankroll gets big enough most people will do a disbursement from the playing bankroll to the household account.

Quote: DRich

I agree. The playing bankroll has to be separate from the living expenses. When the playing bankroll gets big enough most people will do a disbursement from the playing bankroll to the household account.

Everything I have and own is my bankroll. It's not like I'm going to stop playing and go get a job.

Yes well, you're as wrong about that, thinking that my writing is scripted (as in untrue), as you are about thinking that a CTR is a piece of paper that is handed to a gambler to prove a seven figure win. And you repeated that absurd statement and request more than once. Not just once, but twice!

AxelWolf asks for CTR once

AxelWolf doubles down and asks for CTR again

The only explanation you ever gave, was that your mistake was "scripted" 😇 to get a response out of the guy, but given that you doubled down on it and later asked AGAIN for a CTR, no one is buying that explanation for your ignorance. Why should anyone here listen to the opinion of a guy who doesn't seem to understand even how high end table game payouts work?

I bring up the following for no particular reason:

Back in the '70's and 80's, I did some research and actual in-field debunking of the paranormal. The majority of what I read at the time was pro paranormal. Now the reason for that was simply because the majority, and by majority I mean more than 90%, of the books and articles available for reading and television shows were pro paranormal.

Why would this have been the case? Well, in a manner of speaking, they got ratings. People preferred to believe in this ability and that, whether telepathy or astral travel or consciousness survival beyond death. Books or articles or television shows saying you COULD NOT do this stuff were not what people wanted to read or hear.

Some purported gambling abilities do fall into the category of the paranormal.

I return you to your regularly scheduled program. Whether that program happens to be The Twilight Zone or The Outer (Probabilistic) Limits depends on the generosity of the monitors of the site.

Quote: redietz

I bring up the following for no particular reason:

Back in the '70's and 80's, I did some research and actual in-field debunking of the paranormal. The majority of what I read at the time was pro paranormal. Now the reason for that was simply because the majority, and by majority I mean more than 90%, of the books and articles available for reading and television shows were pro paranormal.

Why would this have been the case? Well, in a manner of speaking, they got ratings. People preferred to believe in this ability and that, whether telepathy or astral travel or consciousness survival beyond death. Books or articles or television shows saying you COULD NOT do this stuff were not what people wanted to read or hear.

Some purported gambling abilities do fall into the category of the paranormal.

I return you to your regularly scheduled program. Whether that program happens to be The Twilight Zone or The Outer (Probabilistic) Limits depends on the generosity of the monitors of the site.

I think that this post was so hilarious as to deserve a post documenting how hilarious it is.

Seriously, that post ruled.

(My opinion is based only on the general humor of the post and has nothing to do with any participants in this thread, past or present, nor anything to do with individual posters of the forum, in general.)

It was also the 70's and 80's when any show of even slight sensitive sensibilities would begin with a disclaimer

I guess we have reached that point here as well.

The post you are about to read contains disagreeable content. Any viewers who may be offended the post is only meant in a general sense and not at any race, Creed, religion, sexual orientation, forum poster Advantage Players, or winning gamblers who defy superhuman odds.

What you will see may shock you!

We now present "18 Yo's and Up" already in progress

Cut to:

In our previous episodes we saw what happened to the Yo's as they grew. We started with the Yo's at a young age with "7 Yo's and up" followed by the even more controversial "14 Yo's and Up"

(If that reference is too oblique there was a show called the 7ups about 7 year old kids lives followed 7 years later by the 14ups and the 21 ups and I believe the 28ups. A lifelong documentary project that followed a group of the same kids through their formative and adult years)

EDIT: just checked. They went all the way to 58up! A true life work

Quote: MDawg

Yes well, you're as wrong about that, thinking that my writing is scripted (as in untrue), as you are about thinking that a CTR is a piece of paper that is handed to a gambler to prove a seven figure win. And you repeated that absurd statement and request more than once. Not just once, but twice!

AxelWolf asks for CTR once

AxelWolf doubles down and asks for CTR again

The only explanation you ever gave, was that your mistake was "scripted" 😇 to get a response out of the guy, but given that you doubled down on it and later asked AGAIN for a CTR, no one is buying that explanation for your ignorance. Why should anyone here listen to the opinion of a guy who doesn't seem to understand even how high end table game payouts work?

We have already went over this more than once since you posted or mentioned the same thing what seems to be about 10 times or more by now. Its even been pointed out on another Forum that you keep on posting the exact same thing over and over and it's getting super old. I've already explained numerous times my question may have been a trick question to see how I'd respond. Or I might have just made a faux pas thinking about something else. It's been so long I only vaguely remember that entire situation. I guarantee you I know what a CTR is and have since I worked in a slot department for short time when I was young. Not only that, years ago, I had a case where a Vegas casino tried to get me on structuring and (Avoiding CTR's) and other things in order to justify their actions( including confiscating winnings) but that didn't fly since I was not trying to evade the government reporting, I was simply trying to go unnoticed by the casino as long as possible.

I understand why you keep going back to the same old dry well, because that's all you think you got. Let's assume you're correct and I have no clue how CTR'S work for all the high limit degenerate Baccarat players(yourself, excluded of course, you know, because you always win) then you have absolutely nothing.



It seems that I got suspended for trolling you because no doubt you continually went crying to the moderation and they got sick of it and they knew I wouldn't give a rat's ass about getting a suspension just to shut you up.
Sure, I might post a lot on the forum, it became a habit and ritual, especially so since I actually knew many of the people who posted here in real life, but I certainly don't need it to feel better about myself or to get some special high while making stupid crap up since I don't need fake validation from the forums like some people do(when I say some people, I don't mean any one person in particular there are more than a few)

It's becoming blatantly obvious that you have an obsession with me(I'm not the only one that's noticed it) since I'm large majority of your posts seem to mention my name or allude to me in some form or another some of them you seem to go out of your way just to do so. On this and other forums you have meticulously went back found old and new posts of mine took screenshots and reposted them sometimes multiples at once. Of course you don't post what led up to that particular conversation or my response I'm certainly not going to take the time to respond each and every time. You've even attempted to Doxx me under the disguise of repeating and quoting a Anonymous poster multiple times. A suspicious Anonymous poster who suddenly appeared out of nowhere during a time I was getting under your skin with my popularly close to accurate speculations how about you.

You might say that I and others go after you. And to that, I would say that you have multiple threads dedicated to yourself where oftentimes you're saying some truly not believable things that just don't add up. I recall correctly you were also suspended here for something related to doxxing.

One must ask themselves, who is really doing the trolling and baiting here? I guess the only difference is.... I don't run and tattle over every little thing someone


It brings a smile to my face knowing I'm living in your head rent-free. I think one of the reasons you spend so much time worrying about me and what I say is because I have you pegged.

No, you see...when I point out why you're wrong, I back it up with facts...your own fumblings. <<Or I might have just made a faux pas thinking about something else.>> blah blah blah.

You know I've caught you in multiple "faux pas" that are relevant to your lack of knowledge with markers, high end play, table game play, CTRs, and so on - not just this one. Also, I don't say that you are a liar, I simply point out where you've shown clear lack of gaming knowledge.

And I don't do this to put you down, I do this in response to your calling me a liar so as to point out why your opinion on my level of play is of no value.

When it comes to your accusing me of being a liar...which is flat out what you are doing, why don't you just say it for the record again, all you can do is say that I am a liar, and with zero backup other than just saying it.

It seems that you can't even stay away from discussing other forums publicly, and we have been told that that is grounds for suspension. You've been warned multiple times not to do that. So if you do get suspended again, and you've made clear that you don't care anyway, don't keep trying to claim it's because of me. It's your own shortcomings by refusing to follow the rules that lead to your suspensions.

Tell you what though...if you want to drop constantly calling me a liar, I'll drop responding with why your opinion in that regards is valueless, and this thing may stop here. You’re the one who started it, but I'm willing to end it.

Quote: lilredrooster

I have participated in various gambling message boards for several years
I have come to the conclusion that gamblers are notorious liars

the most outrageous liars are non APs who claim to win in the long run
their bogus methods are always the same; they involve one or more of these bogus methods that they claim can lead to long term winnings:
betting based on patterns; betting based on streaks; using stop losses or stop wins; betting based on intuition; some variation of the martingale

but non APs are not the only liars in the gambling world
many Aps are also liars

but why would an AP lie about his gambling results?
because it's not enough to win in the AP world
status and respect goes to those who have not just won; but have won 𝐁𝐈𝐆

so, my conclusion is this:

when it comes to winning - at least with the size of the wins - you can't trust anything you read on gambling boards as being reliable

as the saying goes:

𝐜𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐫

translation: buyer beware

That's why you rarely hear the best of the bunch talking about playing, games, strategies, losses, or wins. In fact, you basically just don't hear a lot from them at all =).

Quote: Romes

That's why you rarely hear the best of the bunch talking about playing, games, strategies, losses, or wins. In fact, you basically just don't hear a lot from them at all =).

Exactly!...in fact there is no logical reason to hear from them at all, other than....ego.

Quote: MDawg

Tell you what though...if you want to drop constantly calling me a liar, I'll drop responding with why your opinion in that regards is valueless, and this thing may stop here. You’re the one who started it, but I'm willing to end it.

MDawg,
I have seen many of Axel's posts where he expresses the opinion that he doesn't believe your claims. But I don't recall dealing with any where he has called you a 'liar' and presumably got suspended for it. I'm not going to trawl through reams of posts to build up a dossier on him and if you choose to send me links to such posts, it will not be my top priority to judge a load of historic posts.
I get it. Axelwolf doesn't believe you. He frequently shows he doesn't believe you. That is his right and it's not his exclusive right. Get Over IT! If you don't value his opinion, then stop trying to argue with him.
Constantly goading him and other members to explicitly call you a 'liar' and get them suspended is starting to look like trolling to me.
If you're truly willing to 'End it here', then why not stop harping on about Axel's opinion, which you say you don't value, and maybe even block him on this forum?

I'll get over it, when he does. If he has a right to say whatever it is you just outlined, then I have an equal right to respond. In each instance, both the start of this thing, and its resurgence, he is the instigator. I mean, you can't expect someone to be accused and not respond, especially not someone with my background. I do let a lot go, but eventually, I have heard enough from him, enough times, and I respond is all.

IF you noticed, he dropped his comments many times since my return in July, and each time I either said nothing or just Welcome! Finally, after he repeated the same sort of negative comments many times, I did respond. So you can't say that I don't let things go - I do - but after he repeated the same sort of thing without any reaction from me multiple times, eventually, yes, I did respond.

Lots of people here apparently enjoy your creative writing. Maybe some of it is loosely based on reality, maybe it isn't. Not everyone has to enjoy it.

I suppose I should just be flattered that some think that my life is so large that it couldn't be true. But it is!

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: MDawg

Tell you what though...if you want to drop constantly calling me a liar, I'll drop responding with why your opinion in that regards is valueless, and this thing may stop here. You’re the one who started it, but I'm willing to end it.

MDawg,
I have seen many of Axel's posts where he expresses the opinion that he doesn't believe your claims. But I don't recall dealing with any where he has called you a 'liar' and presumably got suspended for it. I'm not going to trawl through reams of posts to build up a dossier on him and if you choose to send me links to such posts, it will not be my top priority to judge a load of historic posts.
I get it. Axelwolf doesn't believe you. He frequently shows he doesn't believe you. That is his right and it's not his exclusive right. Get Over IT! If you don't value his opinion, then stop trying to argue with him.
Constantly goading him and other members to explicitly call you a 'liar' and get them suspended is starting to look like trolling to me.
If you're truly willing to 'End it here', then why not stop harping on about Axel's opinion, which you say you don't value, and maybe even block him on this forum?

LOL. OnceDear, I notice you didn't recommend, "write non-fiction" as a palatable option. Do you have something against non-fiction?

I guess it's as my old writing professors tried to hammer home. "All writing is fiction." Yeah, yeah, I get that, but we still have two sections at the library. Fiction and Non-fiction. It helps the rubes figure out where to walk, so to speak.

Quote: Mission146

I think that this post was so hilarious as to deserve a post documenting how hilarious it is.

Seriously, that post ruled.

(My opinion is based only on the general humor of the post and has nothing to do with any participants in this thread, past or present, nor anything to do with individual posters of the forum, in general.)

Thanks kindly, Mission.

You know, I have done a couple of blog series this year where I'm trying to write the things and I think, "Mission would do this a helluva lot better. He has patience. Be like Mission." I remember I did a series on 'The Equivalent Deaths Argument," a three-parter that debunked the "as many people will die of suicide, drug use, and domestic violence as are saved by locking down." And I did an analysis of a Louie Gohmert interview, and they had to be Joe Friday, measured, and step by step explanatory, and I had to proceed with patient clarity like you do. So thanks for being a good example for some assignments.

You would have been a real good technical writer for the military. Seriously, I edited a few military papers, and you would have been stellar.

Quote: redietz

Thanks kindly, Mission.

You know, I have done a couple of blog series this year where I'm trying to write the things and I think, "Mission would do this a helluva lot better. He has patience. Be like Mission." I remember I did a series on 'The Equivalent Deaths Argument," a three-parter that debunked the "as many people will die of suicide, drug use, and domestic violence as are saved by locking down." And I did an analysis of a Louie Gohmert interview, and they had to be Joe Friday, measured, and step by step explanatory, and I had to proceed with patient clarity like you do. So thanks for being a good example for some assignments.

You would have been a real good technical writer for the military. Seriously, I edited a few military papers, and you would have been stellar.

Thank you kindly, as well. I certainly do not deserve compliments to quite that extent, but they are appreciated. I consider myself a pretty average writer, overall, if not just below average...I just happen to be an average-ish writer who knows a good deal about a niche subject.

For instance, if I tried to write an article about politics that did not relate back to gambling in some way, I doubt very many people would read it. Although, you never know...there might be space in the reporting market these days for a source who at least attempts to look at things objectively.

You're welcome, and I'll make sure to check those blogs out! Probably later on this evening.

Perhaps I would have been a good military writer, though I don't necessarily always respond positively to authority. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd more likely find a way to get myself a court martial in my first week.

I’m beginning to wonder what (if any) of these replies has to do with the original thread’s topic.

Quote: Lovecomps

I’m beginning to wonder what (if any) of these replies has to do with the original thread’s topic.

Perhaps they are all lies!

As a professional gambler I notice I lie a lot in bed

Quote: darkoz

As a professional gambler I notice I lie a lot in bed

Go to the corner, you’re on a timeout.

I did a complete replacement of my walk in freezer. ~2k in parts. A pro would have charged us ~10k, Im guessing. I replaced an AC condenser and converted to 410a. Parts 2K, pro would have charged 5K. It isn't hard to learn through classes as long as you are safe with electricity and flamable refrigerant. Haven't had to replace an air handler yet.

This freezer is in your home? If so, why didn't you just buy a home warranty, wait thirty days, then call it in and pay nothing more than a $75. deductible. Of course once you get that home warranty, assuming it's a good one, you won't want to let it expire. Even at five to seven hunny a year per separate house on your property it beats paying out of pocket for anything it tends to pay for itself.

We have multiple Subzeros in the maison and the value we've gotten out of repairs on these alone exceeds the home warranty premiums. And with Subzeros once they are built in you're pretty much stuck with maintaining them or changing the size (especially the height) of the cabinets they are built into. They also redid the entire heating and AC system one year in the guest house, replaced everything, would have cost something like fifteen grand, all we had to pay was the $75. plus some sort of permit inspection fees.

It's also like all the premiums I pay for extra riders on art, jewelry (watches), etc. - take one hit and you wind up way ahead and are glad you paid for the insurance.

Quote: MDawg

This freezer is in your home? If so, why didn't you just buy a home warranty, wait thirty days, then call it in and pay nothing more than a $75. deductible.

Which would be worse? A lawyer advocating fraud? Or a fraud claiming to be a lawyer?
You do acknowledge that claiming on freezer insurance for a fault that existed and was known about at the time of taking out the insurance is fraud? Or is US law different?

Are you saying that you're shocked, shocked! And all I asked was, "Why didn't you?..."

By the way, are you saying that I am not a lawyer? I'll ask you once again clearly.

It wouldnt matter because insurance requires a waiting period (i think it was 1 year) before claiming major repairs Im in drive thru. Ill answer other questions.

I have water line insurance for home. They came out three times bc they couldnt find leak. Made by another plumber digging for gas line.