Debunking Nonsensical Gambling Claims
Thread Rating:
November 30th, 2020 at 8:16:21 AM
permalink
Two years after I began handicapping sports professionally, USA Today published its first edition on September 15, 1982. I was horrified to discover, in the very first Friday issue I read, two full pages of sports service ads. Most were 1/16th page ad sizes. It wasn't their presence that bothered me; it was the ad copy. Here was the country's first national newspaper other than The Wall Street Journal, and it was allowing all kinds of claims.
The most modest was something like "84-13 ATS." There were some "totals 97-11 ATS" ads. A few quoted 110-13 ATS and such. The most egregious, I think, was a claim to a 94-6 ATS record.
For the next couple of weeks, I had dozens of people ask me about the records in the ads. Basically, people believed that if USA Today published them, then they must be true. Who was I to argue that USA Today was allowing lies? Because of what appeared in USA Today, civilians made decisions about the nature of sports gambling that were completely wrong.
I called USA Today directly and told them what I did for a living. The advertising people seemed genuinely clueless about what was possible. So I explained that all of the claims were nonsensical. One ad by itself would have been somewhat forgivable, but all of them together clustered on two complete pages was a monumental scamfest. They said they would look into it and monitor the situation.
I followed up the phone call with a letter, outlining what I had said.
Contacting them had no immediate impact. The ads continued on Fridays for the better part of two months. Eventually, the two full pages ceased. Sports service ads, after a long while, were relegated to the classifieds.
I called back to see what had motivated the change. USA Today said that customer complaints had been overwhelming, so they decided to end the large placement ads.
This was real world stuff. When Danny Sheridan (previously Schacter) had announced his ATS record in a famous Sports Illustrated back page interview in the 70's, the effect was to make Sheridan very well known and wealthy. A year later, after SI had followed him live and his record was revealed as under .500, it was too late. People had been hornswoggled by the nonsense. Not one bookmaker or handicapper interviewed by SI said Sheridan's original claims were believable. But he was famous and he had fooled hundreds of clients.
My point is simply that in both the USA Today and SI instances, a massive audience bought into the nonsense claims because the gatekeepers were asleep at the switch. People were taken for intellectual and financial rides even though people in the field, to a man, knew better.
Had any of the USA Today advertisers been asked to provide evidence, undoubtedly they could have done so, as did Danny Sheridan. Sometimes evidence is as bogus as the claims it supports.
Addressing some arguments made here at WoV regarding various claims, yes, the sports service ad results listed were all in the past, they all had confirmation (of a sort), and they were all complete nonsense.
WoV, in many ways, finds itself in the same position as USA Today and SI. If people have expertise in a field, they really should use their expertise to debunk nonsense in that field. When experts stay silent, civilians assume all things are possible. When experts don't take a stand, they do damage to others.
Have a good one.
The most modest was something like "84-13 ATS." There were some "totals 97-11 ATS" ads. A few quoted 110-13 ATS and such. The most egregious, I think, was a claim to a 94-6 ATS record.
For the next couple of weeks, I had dozens of people ask me about the records in the ads. Basically, people believed that if USA Today published them, then they must be true. Who was I to argue that USA Today was allowing lies? Because of what appeared in USA Today, civilians made decisions about the nature of sports gambling that were completely wrong.
I called USA Today directly and told them what I did for a living. The advertising people seemed genuinely clueless about what was possible. So I explained that all of the claims were nonsensical. One ad by itself would have been somewhat forgivable, but all of them together clustered on two complete pages was a monumental scamfest. They said they would look into it and monitor the situation.
I followed up the phone call with a letter, outlining what I had said.
Contacting them had no immediate impact. The ads continued on Fridays for the better part of two months. Eventually, the two full pages ceased. Sports service ads, after a long while, were relegated to the classifieds.
I called back to see what had motivated the change. USA Today said that customer complaints had been overwhelming, so they decided to end the large placement ads.
This was real world stuff. When Danny Sheridan (previously Schacter) had announced his ATS record in a famous Sports Illustrated back page interview in the 70's, the effect was to make Sheridan very well known and wealthy. A year later, after SI had followed him live and his record was revealed as under .500, it was too late. People had been hornswoggled by the nonsense. Not one bookmaker or handicapper interviewed by SI said Sheridan's original claims were believable. But he was famous and he had fooled hundreds of clients.
My point is simply that in both the USA Today and SI instances, a massive audience bought into the nonsense claims because the gatekeepers were asleep at the switch. People were taken for intellectual and financial rides even though people in the field, to a man, knew better.
Had any of the USA Today advertisers been asked to provide evidence, undoubtedly they could have done so, as did Danny Sheridan. Sometimes evidence is as bogus as the claims it supports.
Addressing some arguments made here at WoV regarding various claims, yes, the sports service ad results listed were all in the past, they all had confirmation (of a sort), and they were all complete nonsense.
WoV, in many ways, finds itself in the same position as USA Today and SI. If people have expertise in a field, they really should use their expertise to debunk nonsense in that field. When experts stay silent, civilians assume all things are possible. When experts don't take a stand, they do damage to others.
Have a good one.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
November 30th, 2020 at 9:01:29 AM
permalink
^^^ This ^^^Quote: redietz
When experts stay silent, civilians assume all things are possible. When experts don't take a stand, they do damage to others.
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
November 30th, 2020 at 6:13:45 PM
permalink
Don’t believe I’ve ever seen the word “I” repeated so much in one post before.
November 30th, 2020 at 6:35:21 PM
permalink
Quote: redietzWoV, in many ways, finds itself in the same position as USA Today and SI. If people have expertise in a field, they really should use their expertise to debunk nonsense in that field. When experts stay silent, civilians assume all things are possible. When experts don't take a stand, they do damage to others.
Can you elaborate on what you think WoV should do?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 30th, 2020 at 7:29:10 PM
permalink
Debunk all sports touts (-:Quote: WizardCan you elaborate on what you think WoV should do?
Last edited by: AxelWolf on Dec 1, 2020
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
December 1st, 2020 at 4:01:49 AM
permalink
Quote: redietz
WoV, in many ways, finds itself in the same position as USA Today and SI. If people have expertise in a field, they really should use their expertise to debunk nonsense in that field. When experts stay silent, civilians assume all things are possible. When experts don't take a stand, they do damage to others.
It's one of the reasons I continue to stick around. Math can disprove a lot of things, but casino experience and talking with Table Games people from around the Country can give experience to negate some of the wild claims that get thrown around here.
ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
December 1st, 2020 at 5:31:09 AM
permalink
as to those who believe the outrageous claims:
it's not the fault of the experts - these claims are debunked by experts all of the time
the claims keep coming and coming endlessly, it's not reasonable to expect every expert on a site is going to take the time to debunk every dubious claim
there is this thing in this world that we live in called 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲
the reality is that the people who believe these claims want to believe them - they don't want to see them refuted
because many of them, are 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 in search of easy money who cannot accept the truth about themselves or those who make these claims
those who believe the claims have ample means and opportunity to find out whether they are likely to be true or not and they have chosen not to do so
they have chosen to live in a fantasy world
as the saying goes 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝
it may sound cold, but it's time to realize that these people need a lot more than straight talk about negative expectancy, odds and percentages
they need professional help - and that's not something we can provide
*
it's not the fault of the experts - these claims are debunked by experts all of the time
the claims keep coming and coming endlessly, it's not reasonable to expect every expert on a site is going to take the time to debunk every dubious claim
there is this thing in this world that we live in called 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲
the reality is that the people who believe these claims want to believe them - they don't want to see them refuted
because many of them, are 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 in search of easy money who cannot accept the truth about themselves or those who make these claims
those who believe the claims have ample means and opportunity to find out whether they are likely to be true or not and they have chosen not to do so
they have chosen to live in a fantasy world
as the saying goes 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝
it may sound cold, but it's time to realize that these people need a lot more than straight talk about negative expectancy, odds and percentages
they need professional help - and that's not something we can provide
*
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
December 1st, 2020 at 5:38:26 AM
permalink
Agree... I believe strongly in individual responsibility. But would that newspaper accept ads about your winning Nigerian lottery monies? If not, they should not accept ads from the 90% winning touts.
December 1st, 2020 at 8:30:42 AM
permalink
Caveat emptor. More to the point, "legit cave"
Whatever I read, I don't believe most of it. Being in print - on paper - adds nothing to credibility anymore. Washington Post? New York Times? Right.
Of course, if you see it on the internet, it must be true.
I remember as a kid seeing X-ray glasses available for sale in the back of comic books. Did Superman or Batman know about that scam?
I suppose there ought to be some level of accountability or responsibility on the part of the publisher, but the example at the top of this thread says everything about how to ask or demand any such responsibility.
"Dear USA Today..." Who do you speak to? Who at Gannett (the publisher) would read or care about a letter? What's the phone number to call? A single call, email or written letter - what reaction would you expect?
If you're stupid enough to believe it, solely because you read it somewhere, you will eventually learn the appropriate lesson. Everybody lies.
Whatever I read, I don't believe most of it. Being in print - on paper - adds nothing to credibility anymore. Washington Post? New York Times? Right.
Of course, if you see it on the internet, it must be true.
I remember as a kid seeing X-ray glasses available for sale in the back of comic books. Did Superman or Batman know about that scam?
I suppose there ought to be some level of accountability or responsibility on the part of the publisher, but the example at the top of this thread says everything about how to ask or demand any such responsibility.
"Dear USA Today..." Who do you speak to? Who at Gannett (the publisher) would read or care about a letter? What's the phone number to call? A single call, email or written letter - what reaction would you expect?
If you're stupid enough to believe it, solely because you read it somewhere, you will eventually learn the appropriate lesson. Everybody lies.
