Discussion II about the Suspension List
Now you went too far.Quote: KeeneoneIMO, the new volunteer mods (and OD) are doing a great job.
Quote: AxelWolfNow you went too far.
Should I have used good job instead of great?
"I miss him; bring him back" and "I don't miss him; leave him out" are equally invalid arguments.
"WMOAT!" is not germane, but I graciously accept your adulation.
The loaded magic 8 ball, asked if the suspension should remain in force:
... but I'm still listening.
edit: typo
I think semi adequate would be appropriate.Quote: KeeneoneShould I have used good job instead of great?
However, in this particular case, I would say a good job.
P.S. I really dislike that song.
WMOAT is AWAYS relevant.Quote: DieterI think some of you have arguments you wish to present in PM. They are invited, but I won't clickthrough your affiliate link.
"I miss him; bring him back" and "I don't miss him; leave him out" are equally invalid arguments.
"WMOAT!" is not germane, but I graciously accept your adulation.
The loaded magic 8 ball, asked if the suspension should remain in force:
... but I'm still listening.
edit: typo
I'm glad you are listening, but just listen and dont let all the mumbo-jumbo influence your decision. I can already imagine the many long-winded arguments MD is sending the Wizard regarding his suspension. Stand by your decision and stay strong.
Quote: AxelWolfWMOAT is AWAYS relevant.
I'm glad you are listening, but just listen and dont let all the mumbo-jumbo influence your decision. I can already imagine the many long-winded arguments MD is sending the Wizard regarding his suspension. Stand by your decision and stay strong.
a) As I am discovering, the Wizard is not a micromanager (which is entirely good) -and yes, this is another in a long line of my a##-kissing posts.)
b) the Wiz must be taking a fabulous long week-end with the Swedish bikini team, because he has been out of touch for several days now.
c) Axel's WMOAT ratings are on my list of things I care about, just below "Which contestant wins The Bachelorette show?"
I get the feeling that's actully somthing fairly high up on the list of things you care about.Quote: gordonm888a)
c) Axel's WMOAT ratings are on my list of things I care about, just below "Which contestant wins The Bachelorette show?"
Quote: gordonm888
c) Axel's WMOAT ratings are on my list of things I care about, just below "Which contestant wins The Bachelorette show?"
I predict Dayton Hudson will do very well. Again.
Quote: AxelWolfWMOAT is AWAYS relevant.Quote: DieterI think some of you have arguments you wish to present in PM. They are invited, but I won't clickthrough your affiliate link.
"I miss him; bring him back" and "I don't miss him; leave him out" are equally invalid arguments.
"WMOAT!" is not germane, but I graciously accept your adulation.
The loaded magic 8 ball, asked if the suspension should remain in force:
... but I'm still listening.
edit: typo
I'm glad you are listening, but just listen and dont let all the mumbo-jumbo influence your decision. I can already imagine the many long-winded arguments MD is sending the Wizard regarding his suspension. Stand by your decision and stay strong.
No big secret yes. Not your favorite person and you made it very clear of your dislike for the member might as well throw myself in that circle as well.
Quote: Marcusclark66
No big secret yes. Not your favorite person and you made it very clear of your dislike for the member might as well throw myself in that circle as well.
Believe it or not, I bear neither of you any particular malice.
I am declining any benefit of doubt in the current matter, as I feel Mdawg may have already collected his full measure.
Quote: DieterBelieve it or not, I bear neither of you any particular malice.
I am declining any benefit of doubt in the current matter, as I feel Mdawg may have already collected his full measure.
Sir, you I respect and believe with every drop of goodwill in myself. And thanks.
But Axelwolf is entirely a different story.
Can everyone else follow?
It's obvious NOTHING can be done to make some members believe or like MDawg or MarcusClark and its the same there is NOTHING some members can do to make them like them back.
No one is asking us all to be friends and have dinner together, but let's just all coexist for the sake of the forum and the sanity of the Mods.
If you disagree, talk privately with people you know agree with you or scroll along and move on!
Let's get back to the WoV we were years ago!
I dislike very few people, off the top of my head, there are only about 3 people across the forums I have true dislike for.Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: AxelWolfWMOAT is AWAYS relevant.Quote: DieterI think some of you have arguments you wish to present in PM. They are invited, but I won't clickthrough your affiliate link.
"I miss him; bring him back" and "I don't miss him; leave him out" are equally invalid arguments.
"WMOAT!" is not germane, but I graciously accept your adulation.
The loaded magic 8 ball, asked if the suspension should remain in force:
... but I'm still listening.
edit: typo
I'm glad you are listening, but just listen and dont let all the mumbo-jumbo influence your decision. I can already imagine the many long-winded arguments MD is sending the Wizard regarding his suspension. Stand by your decision and stay strong.
No big secret yes. Not your favorite person and you made it very clear of your dislike for the member might as well throw myself in that circle as well.
I don't even dislike Mdawg, I must admit, it brings much joy to many members, myself included when his name goes in red.
Trust me, if I truly dislike or hate someone I have a good reason = they are a serious total piece of garbage.
I don't dislike you, I just don't believe your stories and persona.
That's never going to happen. For the most part, forums are a thing of the past. If you really want to belong/participate in a community of some sort, there are many other much better platforms available.Quote: mwalz9
Let's get back to the WoV we were years ago!
Quote: mwalz9Let's get back to the WoV we were years ago!
I am all for getting back to the WoV from years ago. The WoV that I joined, other players, real players, math guys and even Wizard himself would call out someone coming on making claims that couldn't be, either ALL BUT defying math or defying how casinos and Las vegas works. It was sort of a self policing in the community.
Now that no longer matters. What matter is IF someone calls the claim "fiction" or "fantasy" and the claimant complains, then the person saying I don't beleive, gets suspended for calling someone a liar, which he never did. the lines are all crossed up. The person making up stories, scamming, whatever the case has more protection than the longtime legitimate members who speaaking from experience tell you it can't be. I would like nothing more than to have things go back to some sort of normal, instead of this alternative universe crap we are now in.
(and BTW, I was speaking of no one in particular, so no one should file a complaint that I insulted them or called anyone a liar). See the nonsense we have to go through now. lol.
Quote: AxelWolfThat's never going to happen. For the most part, forums are a thing of the past. If you really want to belong/participate in a community of some sort, there are many other much better platforms available.
I agree, to an extent.
3 of my 4 biggest hobbies are: GAMBLING, MATH, and VEGAS. The 4th is SPORTS.
I have made many friends here who I have on Facebook, have met in person and even have their personal cell #'s.
I enjoy reading this forum daily. There is a lot of good stuff here and for the most part good people.
I try to talk to many of my friends about this stuff or my girlfriend and they think Im a nerd, boring or iver their head. Its nice to talk to people who think and believe like me! Thats what Im here for!
You have no idea how many real life people have told me Im an idiot for laying $300 odds against a 4 or 10 on craps to win $150, because that makes no sense! While everyone here knows thats a fair bet!
Ive said before if there was a casino that let you lay $300 odds against a 4 or 10 and they paid you $225 instead of $150 for it, the membera of this forum would line up and never leave that table. Average Joe would still say that bet makes no sense! I wanna be around you people! Not them!
such as?Quote: AxelWolfThat's never going to happen. For the most part, forums are a thing of the past. If you really want to belong/participate in a community of some sort, there are many other much better platforms available.
ehh.. laying the 4 or 10 with commission paid on the win is still 1.67% HE.Quote: mwalz9You have no idea how many real life people have told me Im an idiot for laying $300 odds against a 4 or 10 on craps to win $150, because that makes no sense! While everyone here knows thats a fair bet!
Ive said before if there was a casino that let you lay $300 odds against a 4 or 10 and they paid you $225 instead of $150 for it, the membera of this forum would line up and never leave that table. Average Joe would still say that bet makes no sense! I wanna be around you people! Not them!
too bad the casinos in AZ with 'no commission 4 or 10' no longer offer it. (or so i read)
Quote: 100xOddsehh.. laying the 4 or 10 with commission paid on the win is still 1.67% HE.
too bad the casinos in AZ with 'no commission 4 or 10' no longer offer it. (or so i read)
I was referring to laying the odds after 4 or 10 was the point. The free odds behind my don't bet. Sorry I wasn't more clear!
Quote: kewljI am all for getting back to the WoV from years ago. The WoV that I joined, other players, real players, math guys and even Wizard himself would call out someone coming on making claims that couldn't be, either ALL BUT defying math or defying how casinos and Las vegas works. It was sort of a self policing in the community.
Now that no longer matters. What matter is IF someone calls the claim "fiction" or "fantasy" and the claimant complains, then the person saying I don't beleive, gets suspended for calling someone a liar, which he never did. the lines are all crossed up. The person making up stories, scamming, whatever the case has more protection than the longtime legitimate members who speaaking from experience tell you it can't be. I would like nothing more than to have things go back to some sort of normal, instead of this alternative universe crap we are now in.
(and BTW, I was speaking of no one in particular, so no one should file a complaint that I insulted them or called anyone a liar). See the nonsense we have to go through now. lol.
I may have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Back in 1982, when USA Today first started publishing, back before an internet, their first issues came out in conjunction with the beginning of the football season. Their Friday edition had two full pages of sixteenth and eighth page ads, all for sports services, all claiming absolutely ridiculous records, like 93-7 ATS (against the spread) and 101-12 on NFL totals, and 64-3 and on and on. I called USA Today and told them that it was all flimflam and that their ad department really needed to vet the ads. They told me to write a letter, so I did. A couple weeks went by, the ads continued, so I called them again and told them the ad claims were, from a pragmatic standpoint, impossible. I told them they were going to have issues, and unless they reined the ads in, USA Today was part of the problem. They should know better. I got no satisfaction.
A couple months went by, and eventually the ads more or less stopped. Some of the less nonsensical ads got moved to the classified page and were shrunk to mini-size. I called to find out what prompted the policy change, and I was told it was because a trickle of customer complaints turned into a tidal wave. Once people gave their phone numbers to the folks running the ads, the people were deluged with phone solicitations.
So my point is that back in 1982, my being in a position to know better than civilians and better than almost anyone what was or wasn't possible sports betting in the real world, I had an obligation to state why the ads were nonsense. If not me, who? If USA Today heard me out and dropped the ball anyway, that was on them. I had lived up to my responsibility.
And I feel that when WoV, a place purportedly about real world gambling and math, gives cover to clearly fictional narratives, then somebody needs to call WoV out. Over and over and over. Until the pixie dust gambling storylines go away or until it's clear 99% of the readership doesn't buy into the fiction. Because if you don't debunk the fiction, then you're part of the problem. You are propping it up by staying quiet.
Quote: Marcusclark66Can we give MDawg any further consideration and reinstate him for time served? Please?
I didnt see a poll. If there is one, vote me for "No".
Otherwise, disregard my vote.
Quote: Marcusclark66Can we give MDawg any further consideration and reinstate him for time served? Please?
Would you like to put it to a vote?
I vote that we don't put it to a vote. I further vote that if we put it to a vote, that I vote no in that vote.Quote: billryanWould you like to put it to a vote?
ps.
Since suspended Socks and unsuspended socks can vote in polls, I further vote that every word 'no' in the above paragraph be 'find and replaced' by 'h311 No!'
Quote: OnceDearI vote that we don't put it to a vote. I further vote that if we put it to a vote, that I vote no in that vote.
But a benevolent ruler should be willing to gauge his subjects feelings on some matters, no? What could possibly go wrong?
Then you add up those that want to lengthen the penalty and subtract those that want to shorten the penalty and.....well best option for the offender is to just keep it where it is. I don't think he would fair to well with a vote. Lol.
I ABSOLUTELY adore the idea of gauging user feelings. I was employed for a decade in compiling customer satisfaction surveys for senior management, and I also received much feedback as an eBay powerseller as my own business.Quote: billryanBut a benevolent ruler should be willing to gauge his subjects feelings on some matters, no? What could possibly go wrong?
The absolutely best and most useful feedback was constructive or even destructive criticism.
I only mention here that the poll feature is too flawed to make it valuable.
Quote: OnceDearI ABSOLUTELY adore the idea of gauging user feelings. I was employed for a decade in compiling customer satisfaction surveys for senior management, and I also received much feedback as an eBay powerseller as my own business.
The absolutely best and most useful feedback was constructive or even destructive criticism.
I only mention here that the poll feature is too flawed to make it valuable.
To quote some old geezer- You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
for starters Twitter and Discord.Quote: 100xOddssuch as?
Quote: OnceDear
I only mention here that the poll feature is too flawed to make it valuable.
I miss BBB, but I'm a bigot.
Quote: Marcusclark66Can we give MDawg any further consideration and reinstate him for time served? Please?
Quit begging.
I suggest that you convince your gamblin' guru to use a small portion of his baccarat winnings to buy this forum; then the two of you can rule the roost.
Quote: DieterI miss BBB, but I'm a bigot.
I miss her too.
Quote: billryanIf a new member came along and claimed he could win at will by using fairy dust, he'd be banned in a minute.
No he wouldn't. There is no rule against saying that.
Quote: WizardNo he wouldn't. There is no rule against saying that.
I have no idea where the disconnect is (in terms of popular opinion) when it comes to this issue.
WoV is not a 100% math or AP site...it's a gambling forum. When people come here and make posts, it's not like the posts are going on WoO.
If there was ever a precedent for disallowing claims as being unrealistic during my time as an Administrator (not speaking of anyone specifically), then I was never made aware of such a precedent and certainly didn't act on it. What usually happens is that someone just comes along, sooner or later, and demonstrates why one particular system or another doesn't mathematically work.
Quote: WizardNo he wouldn't. There is no rule against saying that.
And you don't see that as a problem?
Quote: billryanAnd you don't see that as a problem?
No, I see a problem with the notion of people being stupid enough to read about betting systems and believe they will work. Not to answer for Wizard, of course.
If you read anything, first assume that it is a lie and then go from there.
Quote: billryanAnd you don't see that as a problem?
No one banned you for saying that there’s a difference between holding a commodity you bought at a low price vs buying it at its current price. And that’s exactly gambling system and fallacy logic.
Quote: Mission146No, I see a problem with the notion of people being stupid enough to read about betting systems and believe they will work. Not to answer for Wizard, of course.
If you read anything, first assume that it is a lie and then go from there.
I tend to have higher standards. I'd like to think people with common interests also have better standards than that. When 90% of the forum has a problem with a minority, it's usually not the 90% who wrong. If I want to go to a forum to read lies, there are plenty of political forums.
Quote: billryanI tend to have higher standards. I'd like to think people with common interests also have better standards than that. When 90% of the forum has a problem with a minority, it's usually not the 90% who wrong. If I want to go to a forum to read lies, there are plenty of political forums.
Well, I guess this forum has something of a standard when it comes to Free Speech, within the confines of the other rules. If someone wants to blindly believe stories of just endless winning or systems working (in general), more power to them.
For my part, I've long ago given up on any notion (just speaking in general) of facts somehow becoming more popular than fantasy. I'm perfectly happy to fight the good fight as far as math/gambling facts are concerned, but it's -EV, especially since I know I can only lose.
Quote: Mission146Well, I guess this forum has something of a standard when it comes to Free Speech, within the confines of the other rules. If someone wants to blindly believe stories of just endless winning or systems working (in general), more power to them.
For my part, I've long ago given up on any notion (just speaking in general) of facts somehow becoming more popular than fantasy. I'm perfectly happy to fight the good fight as far as math/gambling facts are concerned, but it's -EV, especially since I know I can only lose.
There is something to be said for free speech, even for system players making claims that defy gambling math and principals. BUT there HAS to be push back allowed, by members, players and math experts and the emphasis shouldn't be if some small insult was involved. T
THAT results in a protection of the person making these goofy claims, and results in him/her essentially using and manipulating this forum's good name and Mike's good name as gambling math expert to further their agenda....whatever that may be? One person is running around on other forums, calling his claims and play "Wizard verified". If Mike is ok with that, whatever, but I object to that on Mike's behalf.
Quote: billryanAnd you don't see that as a problem?
I would like to think I have a high degree of respect for free speech. Part of the cost of that is putting up with speech you don't agree with.
Quote: kewljThere is something to be said for free speech, even for system players making claims that defy gambling math and principals. BUT there HAS to be push back allowed, by members, players and math experts and the emphasis shouldn't be if some small insult was involved. T
THAT results in a protection of the person making these goofy claims, and results in him/her essentially using and manipulating this forum's good name and Mike's good name as gambling math expert to further their agenda....whatever that may be? One person is running around on other forums, calling his claims and play "Wizard verified". If Mike is ok with that, whatever, but I object to that on Mike's behalf.
Plenty of room for pushback. But if they can post about their gambling claims without personally insulting someone, then others can push back as hard as desired without personally insulting them.
Quote: kewljThere is something to be said for free speech, even for system players making claims that defy gambling math and principals. BUT there HAS to be push back allowed, by members, players and math experts and the emphasis shouldn't be if some small insult was involved. T
THAT results in a protection of the person making these goofy claims, and results in him/her essentially using and manipulating this forum's good name and Mike's good name as gambling math expert to further their agenda....whatever that may be? One person is running around on other forums, calling his claims and play "Wizard verified". If Mike is ok with that, whatever, but I object to that on Mike's behalf.
I'm going to level with you on this one, and if I take a short Suspension, then so be it. My days usually have a tendency to go better the less time I spend interacting with other people, anyway.
There is pushback allowed. You wouldn't be out of line, I don't believe, to ask to know the exact mechanism by which the winning is being done. Similarly, someone would be within their own rights not to answer. You can state that Baccarat is a negative expectation game that no predictive-type system can beat outside of some other external factor that would change the mathematical expectation of the game.
Instead, what you guys wanted to do was get MDawg to stop posting here the easy way. Basically, you just wanted to flat out dismiss all of his claims as lies, but that didn't end up working because at least one of the claims is true. MDawg, as it turns out, is a high-limit Baccarat player who sometimes plays in Las Vegas, at an absolute minimum.
Even with all of that, MDawg's thread is buried where it does not appear on the, "Recent Threads," list or the full list when you click on, "Recent Threads." When was the last time you looked at it? I can tell you when it was for me, until five seconds after I type this word...looks like I looked at it in the middle of July, for some reason.
Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call having your thread buried, "Protection," or for posting about your Blackjack experiences in a Blackjack thread and getting a ban for hijacking. If nothing else, he's more harshly moderated than other people are---which is fine. The Mods can do whatever the hell they want. When I was an Admin, I'd also moderate someone with a long history of being banned more strictly.
"Wizard verified," that MDawg played one shoe and was profitable for that shoe. That is indeed what happened. All of that came about because folks were so desperate to call MDawg a liar and prove it that it eventually got to the point that Wizard was offered money to go even see if MDawg represents an actual person who gambles.
It turns out that MDawg DOES represent an actual person who gambles and that more than 0% of his claims are true, precisely as I predicted.
Besides, why should the site get rid of MDawg? Should they do it to satisfy all of the various AP's that jump ship and stop posting anytime AP is discussed here in some kind of hissy fit? Darkoz talks about a high-level AP play, half of the APs on the forum swear off ever posting again, as is their right.
Still, we're generally not going to get much in the way of helpful AP discussion here because nobody will talk about it, for the most part. If you start getting rid of people like MDawg just for existing, then what are you left with after that? "Oh, I played Video Poker 9/6 Jacks or Better at $1.25/hand for about an hour and lost fifty bucks." Riveting stuff.
Hell, even legitimate APs (not saying that anyone in particular is not legitimate) wouldn't want to have proof strictly demanded of them every ten seconds. You certainly don't. In fairness to MDawg, he has definitely proven more about himself than I understand you to have done. I believe your Blackjack tales, of course, but has anyone from the forum ever even seen you? What standard of proof should MDawg be held to when no standard of proof is required of anyone else? Seems a little unfair.
Quote: unJonMission, that was a beautiful post. And you did all that push back without a single personal insult or violating another forum rule. Imagine that!
Thanks for the compliment, but since it was more than fifty words long, I expect that the two of us and KewlJ will be the only ones to read it and there will be at least five complaints about my verbosity.
Speaking of no one inparticular, if a player is claiming to win 100's of thousands of dollars, a half million dollars, playing a -EV game, i don't think it is unreasonable to push back and push back HARD on that. I will push back on that whether it be a video poker player, claiming he wins by progressive wagering and "special" (less optimal) plays, or whether it be a a bacarat player, or whatever.
And furthermore if someone where to hypothetically claim to being comped all sorts of highend stuff, inclduing high end suites, for going on half a year, while winning half a million, I am going to push back saying "that is not the way Las Vegas works".
Rules, insults, protections of what you can or can't say isn't going to matter to me.
That is all I am going to say.
Quote: Mission146"Wizard verified," that MDawg played one shoe and was profitable for that shoe. That is indeed what happened. All of that came about because folks were so desperate to call MDawg a liar and prove it that it eventually got to the point that Wizard was offered money to go even see if MDawg represents an actual person who gambles.
Good post!
Let me remind the forum that quoting from other forums is not allowed. However, I am personally interested in what exactly is "Wizard verified." Please contact me privately, anyone, with an answer to this question.
As Mission said, the only thing I will verify is I watched mdawg win some money on one short sitting. If I had a large bankroll to goal ratio, I would stand a very high probability of showing a win over a part of one shoe too. Otherwise, per an NDA, I can't discuss the details.*
*: Note post edited.
Quote: WizardI continue to maintain I saw no evidence of anything other than luck and certainly not any advantage play. I'm not saying there wasn't some secret advantage play, but if there was, it went right over my head.
I think you just broke a few people hearts!
Quote: Wizard.
As Mission said, the only thing I will verify is I watched mdawg win some money on one short sitting. If I had a large bankroll to goal ratio, I would stand a very high probability of showing a win over a part of one shoe too. I continue to maintain I saw no evidence of anything other than luck and certainly not any advantage play. I'm not saying there wasn't some secret advantage play, but if there was, it went right over my head.
Let me ask you this then? Why was there an agreed restriction placed on you about reporting what you witnessed? I beleive it was so that you wouldn't say what you just did, which really clarifies things for many of us.
