What I did with my $10,000 In Free Play

You say you "strongly discourage detailed public posts on plays you observe from another member."

Fair enough, IF it is only YOUR opinion.

I want to know whether a member who violates this "non-rule" runs the risk of suspension?

To cut to the chase: is it your position as a private party or as a mod (with the implicit force of law behind it)?

Quote: MrV

You say you "strongly discourage detailed public posts on plays you observe from another member."

Fair enough, IF it is only YOUR opinion.

I want to know whether a member who violates this "non-rule" runs the risk of suspension?

To cut to the chase: is it your position as a private party or as a mod (with the implicit force of law behind it)?

Take it easy counselor don't forget rule #11 you will get your ass dis barred for challenging jurisdiction.

Quote: TomG

This may win the award for most perplexing sentence. . .

A couple of decades ago Patty Loveless had a song called something like "You can feel bad (if it will make you feel better)." I thought that was a clever line a couple of decades ago --- and on occasion still find use for it today.

Quote: MrV

You say you "strongly discourage detailed public posts on plays you observe from another member."

Fair enough, IF it is only YOUR opinion.

I want to know whether a member who violates this "non-rule" runs the risk of suspension?

To cut to the chase: is it your position as a private party or as a mod (with the implicit force of law behind it)?

I don't make the rules. I try to enforce them fairly, on a case-by-case basis, because it's often not black or white. This is one of those times, because it's not a straight line from A to B.

There are rules both about respecting privacy, and not posting in order to make an attack on another member. They could either, or both, be invoked on something like this, depending on the situation. However, there is no rule specific to outing plays of another member, as you've noted.

Bob is a professional gambler. He earns money both by discovering and making advantage plays, and by teaching others how to find the best games and play them. He necessarily does this in the public eye, in casinos; they don't give him private places to play.

So it can be argued that he can potentially be harmed in exposure of his business without his permission, either by killing a play he's on, killing his access to it, harming his relationship with the casino he's playing, his relationship with his sponsors, or ruining the monetary value of selling the information he's researching or verifying in order to teach it to others, by giving it away.

In this particular case, I did not feel that what Simon said rose to the level of a privacy violation or harm to Bob professionally. Bob did not complain, which was a factor in deciding that it was not a violation. So I did not issue a suspension or warning. But I could be incorrect in assessing the amount of damage Bob feels was done, if any; I don't know his business any more than Simon does, and probably less. Bob can follow it up with a complaint if he likes.

End of moderator comments.

Personally, I thought it was poor form and said so. There's been more than enough trouble here over outing other people's play or potential opportunities. It should be obvious nobody needs their details reported without their consent.

I'm not an AP, so their concerns are not my concerns.

I'm a recreational player, and was briefly concerned that seemingly innocent comments would cause a suspension.

For example, after attending a prior WoVCon I commented on how Ahigh played craps while standing next to me at the MSS craps table, and IIRC I commented briefly on his method of play.

Taken literally, my comment violated the "non-rule."

So then, is it safe to say your "non-rule" applies only to AP?

Otherwise, who cares?

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to wrap my mind around this new wrinkle.

It's just mind blowing that someone "in the public eye" by his own intention is now saying he wants his privacy. It's common knowledge Dancer plays South Point's 2x days, as he posts about this on his blog and refers to it on GWAE radio shows. I'm not saying go out and post all the plays Dancer does (but considering he said SP's 2x days are one of his best plays, I don't think he has much to hide, TBH). But there's a level of non-privacy one should expect when in the public eye. If his intentions are for his play to remain private, his GWAE shows and blog show otherwise.



djatc, you forgot the 4'th type of player -- big bankroll but clueless. They may know the strategy to whatever game their playing, but they're playing a significantly inferior game, or playing a denomination that hurts them (ie: $10 denom when $5 denom is optimal in some situations).....or they're on a good game with a difficult strategy and are playing horribly incorrectly....but are just playing because they heard it's good or something like that.

Quote: MrV

I'm not an AP, so their concerns are not my concerns.

I'm a recreational player, and was briefly concerned that seemingly innocent comments would cause a suspension.

For example, after attending a prior WoVCon I commented on how Ahigh played craps while standing next to me at the MSS craps table, and IIRC I commented briefly on his method of play.

Taken literally, my comment violated the "non-rule."

So then, is it safe to say your "non-rule" applies only to AP?

Otherwise, who cares?

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to wrap my mind around this new wrinkle.

If you check my original post on this, I expressed my opinion that wov events would be an exception to this concern, as all members could attend if they wanted to, and a long precedent has been established that the events get discussed in detail.

I don't think it's safe to say it only applies to AP events. Let's say you saw someone from here out on the town with a woman not his wife, and you know he's married. Would you think it's appropriate to report that here, to provide details on how they conducted themselves, to speculate on the nature of the relationship? I certainly don't, and I think it would be a privacy violation and a personal attack to do so.

Or maybe you walked around a corner and found a couple members smoking weed, before Vegas made recreational use legal. You think you have a right to post that, the what, who, where, amount, other details? I don't, even now. Perhaps their workplace would consider that a firing offense; and why would you report it anyway, except to cause a problem?

Some of this goes towards intent. Simon ' s intent in posting seemed to be an honest question about why Bob chose to run big money through a machine when a better ev machine was available. I think he wanted to know what he was missing in Bob's choosing to play it, if any. But there could be some ill intent as well, maybe trying to make him look stupid or discrediting him or hoping to cause him a problem with the casino. Bob has his detractors and skeptics. I chose to go with positive intent. I could be wrong.

But back to AP and professional gamblers. If someone posts another person's plays or details on here, looking to kill their action or get back at them, they're in clear violation IMO of the intent of the rules and of the board itself. Determining the intent could come from either the posts themselves, or background info from an injured party; I heard of one such extortionary plan recently that got resolved before it became public (and that's all I'm saying about it).

I would take action in such a case, and have before. Teliot was attacked on here a couple years back by a group of detractors whose posts started off like Simon's towards Bob. For a while there, it was whack-a-mole as they kept using the forum to try and discredit him. Teliot is not an AP, but he is a gaming professional, and this board is not provided as a means to attack his livelihood. Or Bob's. Or Mike's, who has suffered several similar malicious attacks over the years. Or even yours, were you doing it for a living and had disclosed that.

Quote: RS

It's just mind blowing that someone "in the public eye" by his own intention is now saying he wants his privacy. It's common knowledge Dancer plays South Point's 2x days, as he posts about this on his blog and refers to it on GWAE radio shows. I'm not saying go out and post all the plays Dancer does (but considering he said SP's 2x days are one of his best plays, I don't think he has much to hide, TBH). But there's a level of non-privacy one should expect when in the public eye. If his intentions are for his play to remain private, his GWAE shows and blog show otherwise.

You and I are making the same point, essentially drawing the line in the same place. My issue is with the level of detail posted, not with saying he had met Bob while playing, and talked to him.

Quote:

djatc, you forgot the 4'th type of player -- big bankroll but clueless. They may know the strategy to whatever game their playing, but they're playing a significantly inferior game, or playing a denomination that hurts them (ie: $10 denom when $5 denom is optimal in some situations).....or they're on a good game with a difficult strategy and are playing horribly incorrectly....but are just playing because they heard it's good or something like that.

That used to be me, in some respects. It's why I came looking for advice, and found this forum. Great resource, including both of you, sometimes, anyway. :-)

Quote: beachbumbabs

Pretty surprising to have at least 2 self-acknowledged AP's, who not so long ago flagged a post listing a play to supress it, chime in favoring a third party outing a play someone else was doing.

.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong in this scenario. Its a unique situation for many reason.

But, I dont think you can use or compare the Plaza situation to this at all. There is a big difference with the two AP's in question and Bob Dancer. The two AP's are NOT public figures, the two AP's don't have websites, the two AP's don't or haven't ever consulted for casinos, the two AP's don't teach classes, the two AP's dont sell books and stuff, the two AP's dont have a radio show(podcast now?). The two AP's dont get to pick and chose what plays they want to keep to themselves or publicly disclose for monetary reasons. They dont play both sides and then take issue.

Again, I'm not saying he doesn't deserve some privacy, but he advertises and talks about some advantage plays, so I think it's unfair to expect someone to know what they can or cant know what's okay to talk about or what they can say.

Quote: beachbumbabs

So it can be argued that he can potentially be harmed in exposure of his business without his permission, either by killing a play he's on, killing his access to it, harming his relationship with the casino he's playing, his relationship with his sponsors, or ruining the monetary value of selling the information he's researching or verifying in order to teach it to others, by giving it away.

In this particular case, I did not feel that what Simon said rose to the level of a privacy violation or harm to Bob professionally. Bob did not complain, which was a factor in deciding that it was not a violation. So I did not issue a suspension or warning. But I could be incorrect in assessing the amount of damage Bob feels was done, if any; I don't know his business any more than Simon does, and probably less. Bob can follow it up with a complaint if he likes.

We could all be incorrect assessing how much money AP's lost at the Revel and other various places over the years.

Quote: beachbumbabs

But back to AP and professional gamblers. If someone posts another person's plays or details on here, looking to kill their action or get back at them, they're in clear violation IMO of the intent of the rules and of the board itself.

And I agree with that.

I hereby claim that I am involved somehow in any and all Advantage plays. I ask that anything with a potential Advantage(feel free to ask in private) not be discussed unless asked in private first.

Thanks.

Quote: beachbumbabs

If you check my original post on this, I expressed my opinion that wov events would be an exception to this concern, as all members could attend if they wanted to, and a long precedent has been established that the events get discussed in detail.

So then, let's say I am at a WoVCon and a member is there with a woman whom I know not to be his wife, and he whispers to me: "Yo, V! Want to join us for a three way? I'm holding, do you want to do some coke before we start?"

Is that fair game for comment, since it happened at WoVCon?

Again, just trying to "see where the line is drawn."

Quote: MrV

So then, let's say I am at a WoVCon and a member is there with a woman whom I know not to be his wife, and as things are breaking up he says "Yo, V! Want to have a three way? I'm holding, do you want to do some coke before we start?"

Is that fair game for comment, since it happened at WoVCon?

Again, just trying to "see where the line is drawn."

Of course it's not okay IMO.

This site was not meant for outing or hurting people.

If you dont know if its okay to say or not, you probably shouldn't say it. It's simple, just ASK THEM. There would be no reason not to ask them, unless your intentions were to mess with them.

1.) BobDancer seems to have no problem with it, but I would say Simon's post technically directly violates Rule 4 because it alludes to a private conversation presumably without BD's permission to share said conversation.

2.) I would also argue that AP subject matter could fall under Rule 4 as failing to respect privacy. If one WoV Member were to encounter another at the latter's place of employment, could the former post the address/location of said place and what the latter was doing without the latter's permission? I would argue absolutely not, even though the latter may be in the public venue.

In my opinion, AP plays are no different in this regard and would constitute a privacy violation. You're posting about the location of the person's work and nature of their business. Worse yet, the person might end up taking a, "Pay cut," due to the information being shared.

As far as other public sightings...I'd say the decisive question is whether or not the individual has a reasonable expectation of some level of privacy. For example, someone mentioned another person running around on his wife...while a Member might see that occur in the public realm, I'd argue that it's not public knowledge in the sense that everyone on the forum could not be reasonably expected to be aware, or otherwise become aware, of it. How would they know? It's an event with no record made of the event other than by the poster.

Now, if a board member were on video running around on his wife, that might be a different story because you have a tangible public record outside of this board.

Which, in most cases, would be necessary, otherwise you could say you saw person x at place y doing z with z being unflattering, and all person x could do is deny it. At that point, the poster would either have to be able to prove or or would be construed as Trolling.

So, if Member A says, "I saw Member B cheating on his wife," and Member B denies it and Member A can't prove it...pretty much have to ban Member A for Trolling. Severity of the subject matter might even make it a nuke.

There is no expectation of privacy in public period. That's the
law in the real world of course.

Quote: MrV

So then, let's say ...

Lemme see, what was it that Shakespeare had somebody say about lawyers?

Quote: Mission146

Simon's post technically directly violates Rule 4 because it alludes to a private conversation presumably without BD's permission to share said conversation. ... As far as other public sightings...I'd say the decisive question is whether or not the individual has a reasonable expectation of some level of privacy.

Mission,

Compared to many in this discussion, I'm somewhat a new member. But, I have a question as it applies to the rules.

What if I had been in the same casino as BobDancer and Simon23 while Bob was playing the two less-than-optimal VP machines. I don't speak to him (no conversation, public or private). But, from Bob's teaching I know his strong opinion that players win more over the long term when they play machines with the best pay-out schedules.

My concern with Bob's reply to cmlotito is that he seems to sit on both sides of the fence. In effect, he says the OP "flunked" the class on "intelligent gambling 101," while at the same time acknowledging one must respect one's own "comfort level," as the OP shared.

Quote: BobDancer

I think it was a major mistake playing such a bad game.
...
If the swings are too large for your comfort zone or bankroll, play a less volatile game.
...
Avoiding a terrible pay schedule is intelligent gambling 101. And you just flunked that course.

Personally, I think Bob's choice of words in his post clearly violate Forum Rule #1 as a "personal insult." But, what do I know? Multiple Admin's seem to have no problem with Bob's choice of words.

So, here's my question: What kind of trouble would I have gotten myself into if -- in response to Bob's original post to the OP -- I commented that I had seen him doing as bad or worse earlier this year, when he was playing multiple "junk" VP machines? No mention of exact place or time. But, myself confused by the contradiction between what I saw and what Bob posted? Perhaps, my post would have asked Bob to comment on my observation. All very innocent intentions, don'cher know?

Lucky
(... But, Mom, the Emperor hasn't any clothing on!)

Quote: LuckyPhow

Mission,

Compared to many in this discussion, I'm somewhat a new member. But, I have a question as it applies to the rules.

What if I had been in the same casino as BobDancer and Simon23 while Bob was playing the two less-than-optimal VP machines. I don't speak to him (no conversation, public or private). But, from Bob's teaching I know his strong opinion that players win more over the long term when they play machines with the best pay-out schedules.

My concern with Bob's reply to cmlotito is that he seems to sit on both sides of the fence. In effect, he says the OP "flunked" the class on "intelligent gambling 101," while at the same time acknowledging one must respect one's own "comfort level," as the OP shared.

When it comes to Forum Rules, things are essentially on a case-by-case basis. As I alluded to before, it's not even a valid question, in this case, because BobDancer answered the question and, to my knowledge, has presented no accusations related to a violation of Rule 4. In fact, BobDancer presented a detailed reply pertinent to his choice of machine on that day.

As far as being in the casino with them and witnessing that, do you mean if you were to post upon witnessing BobDancer play that here without having any conversation with him? Again, just like my example of some guy running around on his wife, if BobDancer denies the event and you have no proof, then it could be construed as Trolling.

Quote:

Personally, I think Bob's choice of words in his post clearly violate Forum Rule #1 as a "personal insult." But, what do I know? Multiple Admin's seem to have no problem with Bob's choice of words.

So, here's my question: What kind of trouble would I have gotten myself into if -- in response to Bob's original post to the OP -- I commented that I had seen him doing as bad or worse earlier this year, when he was playing multiple "junk" VP machines? No mention of exact place or time. But, myself confused by the contradiction between what I saw and what Bob posted? Perhaps, my post would have asked Bob to comment on my observation. All very innocent intentions, don'cher know?

Lucky
(... But, Mom, the Emperor hasn't any clothing on!)

CMLotito stated his reasons for playing the game he selected and BobDancer accused him of not gambling intelligently. I fail to see how that qualifies as a personal insult. If I came on here and said I am going to buy 100 PowerBall tickets every day until I win, and you posted, "Not buying lottery tickets is Intelligent Gambling 101, and you failed that course," how would that be an insult?

Now, whether or not one might look at the body of responses and conclude that BobDancer is employing a double standard, that is up to each individual person. You could even quote the posts and say, "I think this is a double standard," and then BobDancer (or anyone else) could either respond or not respond to that.

But, in terms of one posting something and being told they are gambling poorly? That happens here all the time. Lottery threads, slot threads, pretty much any gambling system thread. The focus of the base site, WizardofOdds.com, is to analyze games in order to help people find the best bets and gamble better. Offering advice on how to gamble better seems consistent with that goal.

To answer the final question, if without mentioning a time/place you were to post that you witnessed BobDancer (or anyone else) playing something like 6/5 JoB, BobDancer denied same, and you couldn't prove it, you'd be Trolling. I would have to conclude the intent of the post was to defame a Member, what choice would I have? This is much different, CMLotito STATED what he played directly, he wasn't witnessed doing it by some other member.

Quote: MrV

So then, let's say I am at a WoVCon and a member is there with a woman whom I know not to be his wife, and he whispers to me: "Yo, V! Want to join us for a three way? I'm holding, do you want to do some coke before we start?"

Is that fair game for comment, since it happened at WoVCon?

Again, just trying to "see where the line is drawn."

So then, I'll repeat; in.these matters, there is no.straight line from A to B. It would have to be adjudicated on an individual basis.

The particular exemption I referred to was reporting on gaming activities, such as your example of commenting on AHigh's craps methodology. That's what generated this discussion, with Simon commenting on Bob's play in specific detail without his permission, not at a wov event.

You tried to draw a hard line around AP activities, which was too confining, and would allow an unintended loophole to appear to have my pre-dispensation. I can't draw an absolute line on a hypothetical without being able to look into it. So once again I reject your premise, counselor. :-)

A difficult subject with no easy solution: maintaining notions of privacy in a public forum.

MrV this place operates just like a court of law the rules/laws are simply just the opinion of
the highest ranking bar member in the room.

Quote: rainman

MrV this place operates just like a court of law the rules/laws are simply just the opinion of
the highest ranking bar member in the room.

That's sort of true and not true at the same time. The rules are a framework, with some absolutes, and some guidelines. Opinion is restricted to interpretation of those rules, both literally and by intent, when applied to real-world events.

I make the best decision I can at the time, and am usually supported, but have occasionally been overturned, or presented with an appeal that causes me to reverse myself. And that's fine with me. I'd rather make the best decision overall than always be right.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Bob was playing the two less-than-optimal VP machines.

I was playing two games using a 99.67% strategy --- with a 0.60% slot club, two progressives running, and mailers.

For a number of reasons I outlined, I believed m choice was optimal --- everything considered. Including tipping and loss of opportunity (including progressives) when waiting for a hand pay, it was not clear to me which game had the higher return. How is that so clear to you?

On what basis do you consider my choice less-than-optimal? If you're including hourly return, are you including the extra five or more hours I would have had to practice on videopoker.com (earning zero per hour) to get ready for the class that I wouldn't have to spend if I played BPD game at South Point? If you aren't including that, why not?

If two games are within a tenth of a per cent or so, personal preference matters. I would not challenge somebody who preferred 9-7 DB (99.11%) over 8/5 BP (99.17%), even though I would make the opposite choice. The games the OP was talking about were 98.98% versus 96.87% --- a difference of more than 2%. I consider voluntarily giving up that much EV to be a rather clear evidence of a poor choice.

Maybe you don't see the two situations are very different. But I certainly do.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Bob was playing the two less-than-optimal VP machines.

Quote: BobDancer

I was playing two games using a 99.67% strategy --- with a 0.60% slot club, two progressives running, and mailers.

For a number of reasons I outlined, I believed m choice was optimal --- everything considered. Including tipping and loss of opportunity (including progressives) when waiting for a hand pay, it was not clear to me which game had the higher return. How is that so clear to you?

On what basis do you consider my choice less-than-optimal? If you're including hourly return, are you including the extra five or more hours I would have had to practice on videopoker.com (earning zero per hour) to get ready for the class that I wouldn't have to spend if I played BPD game at South Point? If you aren't including that, why not?

If two games are within a tenth of a per cent or so, personal preference matters. I would not challenge somebody who preferred 9-7 DB (99.11%) over 8/5 BP (99.17%), even though I would make the opposite choice. The games the OP was talking about were 98.98% versus 96.87% --- a difference of more than 2%. I consider voluntarily giving up that much EV to be a rather clear evidence of a poor choice.

Maybe you don't see the two situations are very different. But I certainly do.

Let's not forget this gem:

Quote: BobDancer

And personally, even giving up 0.01% by using 9/6 JoB strategy to play 8/5 BP is WAY too much for me to voluntarily give up.

You do realize 0.01% of $1,000,000 is $100, right?


So 0.1% is now the cutoff? Do realize, some people don't have super monster bankrolls and they prefer to be able to make money instead of maximizing EV at all costs.

Wow such a cool story. :D " So I run the simulation how to maximize my winnings" - not a phrase you heard much from gamblers. :)

Quote: Bellaing

Wow such a cool story. :D " So I run the simulation how to maximize my winnings" - not a phrase you heard much from gamblers. :)

I ran simulations to see what i could expect to get out of the 10k. I chose the lower return game due to it being less volatile. My goal was to get back to positive for the year. DDB has much larger swings and as such I was not willing to accept the possibility of not regaining the 7k I was down. So, I had a goal and chose the safest path to it. I hit my goal and am content with that. Had I only got 8k I would still have had no regrets. Any game I play outside of vegas will most certainly have negative EV. If I go soley by the math, then I would never play any game.

Quote: BobDancer

I was playing two games using a 99.67% strategy --- For a number of reasons I outlined, I believed m choice was optimal --- everything considered.

But, you agreed other VP machines had a .13% higher payback. And, you documented your reasons for playing the machines you chose. For all the reasons you listed, I accept you playing as you did. And, cmlotito noted she was playing VP machines when others had a higher payback. And, she listed her reasons, including results of simulations she ran. I accept the reasons she played as she did. You seemed not to accept her reasons for playing as she did.

Quote: BobDancer

On what basis do you consider my choice less-than-optimal?

Only by the average payback percentage, as noted and (apparently) agreed in previous posts.

Quote: BobDancer

If two games are within a tenth of a per cent or so, personal preference matters.

IMHO, personal preference always matters, and both you and cmlotito gave reasons for choices made based on your own individual personal preferences.

Quote: BobDancer

The games the OP was talking about were 98.98% versus 96.87% --- a difference of more than 2%. I consider voluntarily giving up that much EV to be a rather clear evidence of a poor choice.

OK, but I have your book, Video Poker for the Intelligent Beginner. You start the first section of Chapter 1 saying,

Quote:

While it's necessary to differentiate between video poker games, there's no single or unique way to do so. I've chosen "volatility" as a major differentiatior.

You don't say that players flunk Intelligent Gambling 101 when they choose VP games with lower payback in order to obtain a more manageable variance. You help your readers make game choices appropriate for the personal preference of each individual.

IMHO, I felt it overly extreme to assert cmlotitio flunked intelligent gambling 101 by her choice of VP machine, when she had provided us all with a complete overview of her personal preference for playing as she did.

Let me close by saying (again, as a somewhat new member), this message thread has been most instructional. The feedback from Mission146 and others has given me a better perspective of important "issues" about which I was largely unaware. And, I will certainly try to use that information to guide my future posts.

But, as someone -- like yourself -- who has run a variety of business operations, I have always tried to have happy, satisfied customers. In forums, such as WoV, I try to add "light" while trying to minimize "heat." IMHO, using "flunk" to describe play by WoV members -- some of whom may be your customers or your potential customers -- adds unnecessary "heat," when you could have chosen differently and added "light" based on your acknowledged wealth of experience.

Quote: LuckyPhow

But, you agreed other VP machines had a .13% higher payback. And, you documented your reasons for playing the machines you chose. For all the reasons you listed, I accept you playing as you did. And, cmlotito noted she was playing VP machines when others had a higher payback. And, she listed her reasons, including results of simulations she ran. I accept the reasons she played as she did. You seemed not to accept her reasons for playing as she did.



Only by the average payback percentage, as noted and (apparently) agreed in previous posts.



IMHO, personal preference always matters, and both you and cmlotito gave reasons for choices made based on your own individual personal preferences.



OK, but I have your book, Video Poker for the Intelligent Beginner. You start the first section of Chapter 1 saying,



You don't say that players flunk Intelligent Gambling 101 when they choose VP games with lower payback in order to obtain a more manageable variance. You help your readers make game choices appropriate for the personal preference of each individual.

IMHO, I felt it overly extreme to assert cmlotitio flunked intelligent gambling 101 by her choice of VP machine, when she had provided us all with a complete overview of her personal preference for playing as she did.

Let me close by saying (again, as a somewhat new member), this message thread has been most instructional. The feedback from Mission146 and others has given me a better perspective of important "issues" about which I was largely unaware. And, I will certainly try to use that information to guide my future posts.

But, as someone -- like yourself -- who has run a variety of business operations, I have always tried to have happy, satisfied customers. In forums, such as WoV, I try to add "light" while trying to minimize "heat." IMHO, using "flunk" to describe play by WoV members -- some of whom may be your customers or your potential customers -- adds unnecessary "heat," when you could have chosen differently and added "light" based on your acknowledged wealth of experience.

For the record, last time I checked, I am a dude. :)

cmlotito,

My apologies. The photo in your original post showed two women. I mistakenly assumed you were saying you were not the one most prominent in the camera.

Quote: LuckyPhow

cmlotito,

My apologies. The photo in your original post showed two women. I mistakenly assumed you were saying you were not the one most prominent in the camera.

No problemo.

1. I thought LuckyPhow's post was made by AxelWolf. I saw the "liked" icon of Axel's beneath Lucky's avatar thing (I'm on my phone, not desktop). I seriously thought Axel's account got hacked. Multiple quotes and grammar/spelling threw me off. Nice post, LuckyPhow.

2. For some reason, I thought cmlotito was a chick, too. I knew it wasn't him/her in the pic, but I had assumed you were a chick too.

Quote: RS

I had assumed you were a chick too.

I'm a dude, also. DeMango can confirm. He and I played together in Biloxi last December (as noted in my trip report).

But, I easily understand any confusion on your part. Long-time tech writer, don'cher know? I'm into grammar mechanics like Miplet lives and breathes stat.

An amazing story. :) It's like a fairy tail with happy end!!! :)