Flim-Flam!
But Randi didn't buckle. He did not give an inch, spent a lot of money defending himself, and always won. It didn't matter how much heat he took or how much it cost. He was uncompromising when it came to calling out flim-flam as flim-flam.
Anyway, partly because of Randi's example, I did some paranormal debunking in my youth. And I wrote an award-winning essay featured in The Humanist called, "Scientists, Gamblers, and Magicians: Allies Against the Irrational."
That brings me to today. Some folks are, in my opinion, abrogating their responsibilities to call gambling flim-flam what it is. They are providing irrational tales a home.
All I can do is tell people that I've been involved in high stakes gambling for more than 40 years. I have a pretty good sense of what is and is not possible. If I need math help, I have some academic friends in town who have taught college probability. If anyone has any questions regarding what is likely to be gambling reality and what is not, feel free to email me at integritysports@aol.com. I literally have no hours to spare during the college football season, but afterwards, I will do my best to provide an opinion and answer any questions.
Quote: redietzSome folks are, in my opinion, abrogating their responsibilities to call gambling flim-flam what it is.
Either you or Randi should accept the MDawg challenge and debunk his claims.
He's offering up nearly 100 sessions for you to debunk...Martingaling may work if you have so little faith in your convictions straight-up.
Randi debunking Uri Geller was just low hanging fruit.
Gambling "pseudoscience" is pretty easy to see. There should be theory and data. There are many examples of betting talk that just doesn't hold up to even the most basic inquiries.
Quote: redietzI literally have no hours to spare during the college football season, but afterwards, I will do my best to provide an opinion and answer any questions.
So you chose the beginning of the college football season to post this. It starts next weekend. What are some examples of gambling flim-flam. Either something works or it doesn't. Where is flim-flam involved.
I'm not sure we can trust anyone who is still using an AOL email address 😀Quote: redietz"Flim-Flam!" by James Randi is a book that exposes many far-fetched paranormal claims. I have always been a great fan of Randi, who debunked everyone from Uri Geller to various wealthy TV evangelists. What I loved about Randi was his uncompromising attitude. I remember when CSICOP disassociated from Randi because Randi had gone after Geller hard publicly, and CSICOP was concerned about the lawsuits Geller had brought.
But Randi didn't buckle. He did not give an inch, spent a lot of money defending himself, and always won. It didn't matter how much heat he took or how much it cost. He was uncompromising when it came to calling out flim-flam as flim-flam.
Anyway, partly because of Randi's example, I did some paranormal debunking in my youth. And I wrote an award-winning essay featured in The Humanist called, "Scientists, Gamblers, and Magicians: Allies Against the Irrational."
That brings me to today. Some folks are, in my opinion, abrogating their responsibilities to call gambling flim-flam what it is. They are providing irrational tales a home.
All I can do is tell people that I've been involved in high stakes gambling for more than 40 years. I have a pretty good sense of what is and is not possible. If I need math help, I have some academic friends in town who have taught college probability. If anyone has any questions regarding what is likely to be gambling reality and what is not, feel free to email me at integritysports@aol.com. I literally have no hours to spare during the college football season, but afterwards, I will do my best to provide an opinion and answer any questions.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not sure we can trust anyone who is still using an AOL email address 😀
I still use my AOL.
What's wrong with it?
Quote: darkozI still use my AOL.
ME TOO.
$:o)
I don't know how you can say what you say, when you have not been able to answer basic questions about your own theoretical underpinnings! You've got so many unanswered posts from me, I'd go nuts trying to retrieve them all. Yet here you are saying this!?Quote: TomG
Gambling "pseudoscience" is pretty easy to see. There should be theory and data. There are many examples of betting talk that just doesn't hold up to even the most basic inquiries.
Wellbush,Quote: WellbushI don't know how you can say what you say, when you have not been able to answer basic questions about your own theoretical underpinnings! You've got so many unanswered posts from me, I'd go nuts trying to retrieve them all.
To start, why don't you, redietz, OnceDear, Wizard or anyone, try and debunk Wellbush's Paradox. If you ask: "Where/What is Wellbush's Paradox?" then I need not say anymore.
And here's another: is the Grand Martingale System an example of + or - EV? Furthermore, I agree that the Martingale System quickly runs out of bankroll for most gamblers, and many betting limits.
But that's not the point! My point about the Grand Martingale having a +EV is: it just takes someone mathematically less challenged, to come up with a variation of a Progressive System (that has a +EV). A Progressive System (with a +EV) variation that is doable for the gambler, to stay in the game at a casino.
And saying this is trolling, is poppycock. It's math people, pure and simple.
Not Trolling, but it is hijacking.
I'll humour you, but invite you to big up your 'system in it's own thread. One of these, if I recall.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/wellbush/threads/
Wellbush's Paradox is no paradox.
GrandMartingale is 0EV of itself, so you get the -EV from whatever underlying game you throw it at. Same with regular Marty 0EV.
Again, to anyone thinking of responding. get back on topic and take the systems nonsense back where it belongs.
Quote: OnceDearWellbush,
Not Trolling, but it is hijacking.
I'll humour you, but invite you to big up your 'system in it's own thread. One of these, if I recall.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/wellbush/threads/
Wellbush's Paradox is no paradox.
GrandMartingale is 0EV of itself, so you get the -EV from whatever underlying game you throw it at. Same with regular Marty 0EV.
Again, to anyone thinking of responding. get back on topic and take the systems nonsense back where it belongs.
I thought the point of this thread was to discuss flim-flam.
Like the grand Marty?
I could dispute much of this OD, but it would be hijacking redietz' thread.Quote: OnceDearWellbush,
Not Trolling, but it is hijacking.
I'll humour you, but invite you to big up your 'system in it's own thread. One of these, if I recall.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/wellbush/threads/
Wellbush's Paradox is no paradox.
GrandMartingale is 0EV of itself, so you get the -EV from whatever underlying game you throw it at. Same with regular Marty 0EV.
Again, to anyone thinking of responding. get back on topic and take the systems nonsense back where it belongs.
This point's now been made DOzQuote: darkozI thought the point of this thread was to discuss flim-flam.
Like the grand Marty?
Quote: WellbushI could dispute much of this OD, but it would be hijacking redietz' thread.
You're disputing a benign cautionary statement?
not the caution, but the theoretical argument. I might add that I think it was pretty obvious what i was disputing, Dieter. Do you go to the same lengths checking naysayers?Quote: DieterYou're disputing a benign cautionary statement?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not sure we can trust anyone who is still using an AOL email address 😀
I still use my AOL email address as well.
I was an early technology adopter. There is nothing wrong with the AOL email system and it is my reference email for dozens of websites, credit cards, restaurants, etc. It would be a royal pain to change it.
Quote: gordonm888I still use my AOL email address as well.
You're supposed to say
[AOL]ME TOO[/AOL]
$:o)
Quote: Wellbushnot the caution, but the theoretical argument. I might add that I think it was pretty obvious what i was disputing, Dieter. Do you go to the same lengths checking naysayers?
My skills of identifying unspecified antecedents are lousy.
As this is somewhere between hijacking and derailment, and we have a quorum of greens in attendance, I subject myself to such penalties and consequences as they see fit.
Quote: Wellbushyes, I can see it was unintentional hijacking, so I deleted most of it. I'll save it for a more opportune moment!
11:45a.m. EST on the 32nd of August would be a good time.
Quote: WellbushI'm insulted that you refer to my post as trolling. It was a neutral q!
And the other insult, asking me to respond on 08/32!
What do you think of the above insults, Dieter?
A question that uses the word, "Fools," is to be interpreted as a neutral question?
The other thing wasn't an insult. It was just saying that I would prefer for the opportune moment to read that post to be, 'Never.' I'm allowed to say that I'm not looking forward to reading a post.
There appears to me there is a subject in this thread that clearly is hijacking since this thread is about gambling flim flam.
Some may say that subject is discussion of using grand Marty.
I personally say it's a discussion of who uses AOL
One has been rebuked on here.
One has not.
Just stating the truth as I see it.
Quote: darkozI just tell it like I see it.
There appears to me there is a subject in this thread that clearly is hijacking since this thread is about gambling flim flam.
Some may say that subject is discussion of using grand Marty.
I personally say it's a discussion of who uses AOL
One has been rebuked on here.
One has not.
Just stating the truth as I see it.
[aol]ME TOO[/AOL]
:o)
OK. Rebuke to self and all others that hijacked this thread with AOL related quips... Or other off topic stuff.
Quote: Mission146A question that uses the word, "Fools," is to be interpreted as a neutral question?
The other thing wasn't an insult. It was just saying that I would prefer for the opportune moment to read that post to be, 'Never.' I'm allowed to say that I'm not looking forward to reading a post.
I was clearly referring to the word (fools) that OD used. And my statement was a q (started with maybe and finished with a ?), not a fact (unlike OD's)!
Quote: WellbushI'm insulted that you refer to my post as trolling. It was a neutral q!
And the other insult, asking me to respond on 08/32!
What do you think of the above insults, Dieter? (Not to mention the arrogance that certain people know about gambling math, so I don't and/or they shouldn't be questioned! Ah, as far as I'm aware I have a degree with math majors, but 146?)
I can neither confirm nor deny your credentials as a math expert, nor your expertise in the field of probability.
I am sure that a calendar reckoning scheme could be devised where August 32nd exists, although I don't know why one would.
The combatants are advised to chill out until after I get some coffee.
Good question.Quote: Wellbushas this thread is about gambling flim-flam, would that not include gambling systems?
OnceDear
DarkOz
gordonm888
All still use AOL Emails.
Things are starting to make sense.
Quote: DieterI can neither confirm nor deny your credentials as a math expert, nor your expertise in the field of probability.
I am sure that a calendar reckoning scheme could be devised where August 32nd exists, although I don't know why one would.
The combatants are advised to chill out until after I get some coffee.
July and August once had 30 days each, until peoples ego's changed that. Things change. Keep hope alive.
I once volunteered to help clean a dog park on the 5th Sunday of each month and was surprised how often it occurred.
Quote: EvenBobFour pages of posts and apparently nobody knows what gambling flim-flam is. The OP has completely disappeared and is not explaining it. So what is gambling flim-flam, I have no idea.
I think everyone knows exactly what this thread is about.
Quote: EvenBobFour pages of posts and apparently nobody knows what gambling flim-flam is. The OP has completely disappeared and is not explaining it. So what is gambling flim-flam, I have no idea.
"Flim-flam was explained in the very first sentence. It is a book by James Randi. There are a lot of parallels between what Randi wrote about and some things that go on in the gambling world. Some of the statements you have made and then either refuse to elaborate, or lack the capacity to elaborate on are perfect examples of that.
It was a very good try by ritz, on a good topic. But very quickly taken over by trolling, so understandable why he doesn't care to say anything more. I'll take it as my weekly reminder as to why I only check in once per week or less.
Quote: DieterMy skills of identifying unspecified antecedents are lousy.
As this is somewhere between hijacking and derailment, and we have a quorum of greens in attendance, I subject myself to such penalties and consequences as they see fit.
I think that was a classy post, considering your neutrality on certain matters was being called into question.
Quote: TomGSome of the statements you have made and then either refuse to elaborate, or lack the capacity to elaborate on are perfect examples of that.
How so. Who am I trying to 'flim-flam'? I'm not selling anything, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, believe what I say or don't, who cares. So flimflam means you refused to elaborate? So does that mean because Coca-Cola refuses to tell us their formula for making Coke but they are flim-flaming us? By your explanation Coca-Cola is a flim-flam operation. This thread makes no sense. I still have no idea what flimflam gambling is.
Quote: EvenBobSo flimflam means you refused to elaborate?
That is not what it means. Two people already told you exactly what it is: it is the title of a book. It is truly fascinating how you lack the ability to accept that.
Quote: BoSoxI think that was a classy post, considering your neutrality on certain matters was being called into question.
Classy ain't nothin' without the last two thirds, and that part I've got down.
I don't claim to be fair or neutral.
I really do have a magic 8 ball and a set of dice. I really do use them to aid my decisions. Haven't gotten an extra set to carry with me; if anyone has a magic d20 app for android they'd care to suggest...
Now that's worthy of a WMOAT gade upgrade.Quote: Dieter
I don't claim to be fair or neutral.
Quote: AxelWolfNow that's worthy of a WMOAT gade upgrade.
You're hijacking, but I'll overlook it with just a lot more flattery.
Quote: TomGTwo people already told you exactly what it is: it is the title of a book.
No it's not. The title of the book is Flim-Flam, not gambling flim-flam. Here's what the OP said:
"That brings me to today. Some folks are, in my opinion, abrogating their responsibilities to call gambling flim-flam what it is."
So I repeat, what the heck is gambling flim-flam. Give some examples. He started a whole thread about it, there must be lots of examples.
Hijacking? Oh, Flim-flam flewy.Quote: DieterYou're hijacking, but I'll overlook it with just a lot more flattery.
Quote: TomGIt was a very good try by ritz, on a good topic. But very quickly taken over by trolling, so understandable why he doesn't care to say anything more.
Or perhaps he took the time to read the articles that he linked,
and realized that he was misinformed himself.
Quote: redietzI can tell you that casino win/loss statements are NOT considered evidence of much of anything by either the IRS or U.S. tax courts. But don't take my word for it. Here are a couple of brief, clear reviews of why casino win/loss statements aren't considered evidence of anything.
According to information contained within the linked articles,
the IRS and Tax Courts seem willing to accept the accuracy of the W/L statements.
It's clear that they are considered to be reliable evidence.
Hardwick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Judge Wherry relied upon casino win/loss statements to
impeach the credibility of the taxpayers’ other evidence.
Instead of using the casino win/loss statement as a shield for the taxpayers,
the IRS and the Court used it as a sword against the taxpayers.
Merkin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Judge Goldberg then went on to use the information contained
in the casino win/loss statements against the taxpayer.
*
AxelWolf made a lengthy on-topic comment, with flourishes, which contained an incidental question "Who still has an aol email account?"
Several people, including myself and another moderator made brief comments responding to this incidental question.
Axel made a brief summing-up comment, in a smart-ass tone, about people using AOL.
That was the end of it
*********************************
Hijacking is when one or more people each make multiple posts in a short time-frame about some other topic, persisting in an off-topic conversation in a way that dominates the thread. If a person has been asked to stop hijacking the thread and has persisted anyway then that is an aggravating factor. "Hijacking" should be an appearance of a clear and present disruption to the thread, rather than a brief sidebar dialog that is within the bounds of how normal conversation is conducted.
So, the brief AOL discussion was in no way a hi-jacking violation.. And people who keep crying "hijack" or "insult" over incidental posts to get other forum members in trouble are becoming themselves a problem.
The Moderators are capable of moderating without members serving as "rules lawyers" -especially when these "rules lawyers" seem to be targeting their "adversaries" with their claims of rules violations. Stop making mischief and please act like an adult.
Quote: gordonm888There was no hijacking here.
*
AxelWolf made a lengthy on-topic comment, with flourishes, which contained an incidental question "Who still has an aol email account?"
Several people, including myself and another moderator made brief comments responding to this incidental question.
Axel made a brief summing-up comment, in a smart-ass tone, about people using AOL.
That was the end of it
*********************************
Hijacking is when one or more people each make multiple posts in a short time-frame about some other topic, persisting in an off-topic conversation in a way that dominates the thread. If a person has been asked to stop hijacking the thread and has persisted anyway then that is an aggravating factor. "Hijacking" should be an appearance of a clear and present disruption to the thread, rather than a brief sidebar dialog that is within the bounds of how normal conversation is conducted.
So, the brief AOL discussion was in no way a hi-jacking violation.. And people who keep crying "hijack" or "insult" over incidental posts to get other forum members in trouble are becoming themselves a problem.
The Moderators are capable of moderating without members serving as "rules lawyers" -especially when these "rules lawyers" seem to be targeting their "adversaries" with their claims of rules violations. Stop making mischief and please act like an adult.
I am not a Wellbush supporter but he made one post which was about gambling using his system that many people would categorize as flim-flam in the traditional meaning. By your definition above about multiple posts being required for hijacking no way could it have been hijacking, yet he was accused of such.
Meanwhile, when looking for the next gambling flim-flam post in this thread to keep reading about who is using AOL, okay if that's just a sidebar...
I wasn't trying to get anyone suspended btw but trying to point out the hypocrisy in the ruling. I also was guilty of discussion of AOL as was OD.
Something along that line would work here. No one should be rewarded for their crocodile tears and whining.
Quote: billryanMy family had the bumblebee rule. If one of us did something that got someone mad, they could whine about it to my parents. The only thing was if it was unjustified, the whiner got punished.
Something along that line would work here. No one should be rewarded for their crocodile tears and whining.
Well, that explains why you almost never admit when you are wrong.
Quote: darkozI am not a Wellbush supporter but he made one post which was about gambling using his system that many people would categorize as flim-flam in the traditional meaning. By your definition above about multiple posts being required for hijacking no way could it have been hijacking, yet he was accused of such.
Meanwhile, when looking for the next gambling flim-flam post in this thread to keep reading about who is using AOL, okay if that's just a sidebar...
I wasn't trying to get anyone suspended btw but trying to point out the hypocrisy in the ruling. I also was guilty of discussion of AOL as was OD.
I agree with your analysis. I personally don't think that the one remark by Wellbush qualified as a hijacking offense, I note that the moderator issued the equivalent of a warning but did not suspend Wellbush.
Again, the AOL comments were just incidental banter.
Quote: billryanMy family had the bumblebee rule. If one of us did something that got someone mad, they could whine about it to my parents. The only thing was if it was unjustified, the whiner got punished.
Something along that line would work here. No one should be rewarded for their crocodile tears and whining.
All members in good standing are welcome to bring matters of concern to the attention of management.
If you annoy me via PM, it's a private conversation.
If you flood the forum with unfounded complaints, there are rules for insult, trolling, bullying, hijacking, privacy, acting like you're less than 21 years of age, spamming, duping, misquoting, thumbtacking, and the ever nebulous Rule 0 which may be applied.
So, uhh, what he said. Grow a thicker skin, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Quote: EvenBobIn order for something to qualify as a flim-flam it has to fraudulently take your money.
I read it to mean purporting an ineffective gambling system as effective and offering same for sale.
On the other hand, my ebook explains the winning secret casinos don't want you to know.
Quote: DieterI read it to mean purporting an ineffective gambling system as effective and offering same for sale.
If it takes your money and doesn't work it's a flim-flam. And there are no winning secrets the casino doesn't want you to know..
