Should mrjjj be banned?
Poll
 | 30 votes (40%) | ||
| | 39 votes (52%) | ||
| | 6 votes (8%) |
75 members have voted
February 20th, 2012 at 10:50:48 PM
permalink
I've been getting a lot requests to ban mrjjj on the basis of trolling. You may recall the last troll to get kicked off was Garnabby.
In mrjjj's defense, he never seems to cross any lines with any one post. I think a lot of his critics are more abusive in their language than he is.
On the other hand, his general message is hostile to the tone of the site. His tagline I think says it all. I view his behavior like that of a Holocaust denier preaching his message on a site about Judaism, even if done in a polite way.
I think to get a trolling expulsion a vast majority of the members should support it. I'd like to see 90%, but will consider it in the 80% to 89% range.
In mrjjj's defense, he never seems to cross any lines with any one post. I think a lot of his critics are more abusive in their language than he is.
On the other hand, his general message is hostile to the tone of the site. His tagline I think says it all. I view his behavior like that of a Holocaust denier preaching his message on a site about Judaism, even if done in a polite way.
I think to get a trolling expulsion a vast majority of the members should support it. I'd like to see 90%, but will consider it in the 80% to 89% range.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 20th, 2012 at 11:00:02 PM
permalink
I am guilty of engaging in some hostile exchanges with mrjj and I wish I had just stayed out of the discussion.
I regret letting my emotions get the better of me.
I do not feel he should be banned, but I think he should be asked to discontinue his discussions about his roulette theories.
His denial of the gamblers fallacy is something of an anathema to the members of the forum who see it as common sense.
He didn't seem to know what trolling was, though that does not mean he isn't one.
I say give him a shot at reform.
I regret letting my emotions get the better of me.
I do not feel he should be banned, but I think he should be asked to discontinue his discussions about his roulette theories.
His denial of the gamblers fallacy is something of an anathema to the members of the forum who see it as common sense.
He didn't seem to know what trolling was, though that does not mean he isn't one.
I say give him a shot at reform.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 20th, 2012 at 11:07:58 PM
permalink
Quote: WongBo
He didn't seem to know what trolling was...I say give him a shot at reform.
LOL
You assume this is his first rodeo.
"What, me worry?"
February 20th, 2012 at 11:12:54 PM
permalink
Oh I have no doubt he is a troll, just not a very bright one.
So I don't hold it against him as so much.
So I don't hold it against him as so much.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 20th, 2012 at 11:18:31 PM
permalink
For now, I've given jjj 7 days for personal insult and profanity.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 20th, 2012 at 11:20:03 PM
permalink
On one hand, he offers good discussion. On the other hand, his debate techniques are annoying. He often tip toes around the subject. I would think a warning would be justifiable, however I voted no on being banned. Sure, some members verbally attack him, and I feel these members should be warned as well (I may be guilty, but I have tried to stay within reason).
February 20th, 2012 at 11:33:28 PM
permalink
If it was up to me I'd not ban him for being anti-ap or having wacky beliefs, but for what I consider true trolling - posting only to get a rise and reaction from others. There are way too many posts where he selectively quotes, overloads on "lol's," and insists others aren't answering his questions due to tiny semantic differences. I'm quite convinced that isn't his style but rather a calculated technique.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:08:31 AM
permalink
My vote is for no. For reasons stated by other members, I concur. While he is "annoying" he certainly hasn't been blatantly racist or offensive like some people I've talked to in the past (not here).
My vote is for him to stay. Gambler's Fallacy and all. We should embrace everyone, as long as they are not making defiling comments akin to legitimate personal attacks as opposed to "perceived" personal attacks *eyeroll*.
My vote is for him to stay. Gambler's Fallacy and all. We should embrace everyone, as long as they are not making defiling comments akin to legitimate personal attacks as opposed to "perceived" personal attacks *eyeroll*.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:38:04 AM
permalink
Might be a bit harsh.
He is obviously not well.
Can't seem to shake off that persistent cough.
He is obviously not well.
Can't seem to shake off that persistent cough.
萬歲言論自由。
February 21st, 2012 at 12:44:54 AM
permalink
The past two days reading forum posts had so much attacking nonsense in those two threads that I stopped reading and just skimmed through most of it. I thought of things that I could possibly post to stop all of it, but I know mrjjj would start pulling me into this mess so I decided to stay out of it as it was none of my business. The tone and behavior that was presented in my opinion is clearly unacceptable.
As I am still somewhat of a "newbie" here, I have no clue if this is normal of mrjjj or if he just had a bad weekend.
As I am still somewhat of a "newbie" here, I have no clue if this is normal of mrjjj or if he just had a bad weekend.
Always look for opportunities.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:51:23 AM
permalink
Quote: MrVLOL
You assume this is his first rodeo.
That is true. He has openly stated that it isn't his first rodeo. Hmmm.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:59:22 AM
permalink
Quote: victorimmatureMight be a bit harsh.
He is obviously not well.
Can't seem to shake off that persistent cough.
This made me laugh out loud, literally. Well done!
With respect to the original question, in my most humble opinion, he adds nothing to the site. All he does is incite flame wars with his vague roulette claims and denial of traditional, mathematically provable advantage plays. I'm not saying it's impossible he has an advantage play, and if he does I fully understand not divulging it. But his tone and attitude are indefensible.
Sure, it takes two, or three, or four to tango, and hence I have resisted the urge to reply to his inane posts. If he returns after the warning period, I urge the rest of you to do the same and maybe he'll go away.
tl;dr
AP rocks, don't feed the troll.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
February 21st, 2012 at 1:09:40 AM
permalink
I think a simple oath to the veracity of the gamblers fallacy should be incorporated into a terms of service page.
That oughta take care of it ;)
That oughta take care of it ;)
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:41:17 AM
permalink
I've been a moderator at forums and have 'fought' against people like this. They don't change. You argue and argue but until they lose their bankroll (and sometimes more) they don't accept the mathematical facts and just end up being annoying to the purposes of the forum. It's one thing to discuss one AP play over another but it's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't even accept that AP is even possible. His signature reveals a lot about him and, has been pointed out by some, if his claims about his play are correct in that his 'method' provides him with an advantage then it would make him an AP as well.
On the basis that he doesn't add anything positive or constructive to the forum, I voted to ban. Don't worry, like the many I encountered over the years, he won't shed any tears and he'll move on to somewhere else where he can illicit the same response as here.
On the basis that he doesn't add anything positive or constructive to the forum, I voted to ban. Don't worry, like the many I encountered over the years, he won't shed any tears and he'll move on to somewhere else where he can illicit the same response as here.
February 21st, 2012 at 4:13:52 AM
permalink
I voted no. I don't think Ken's behavior warrants permanent banning although it has taken a turn for the worse. I was expecting him to get a 3 day suspension but 7 days is fine with me.
I had never heard of Gambler's Glen but curiosity got the best of me and I took a look. The latest topic there is The Wizard Board. I recognized a few names from their postings on WOV including one permanently banned member who seems to be using Gambler's Glen to make derogatory remarks about this site and the Wizard in particular.
I had never heard of Gambler's Glen but curiosity got the best of me and I took a look. The latest topic there is The Wizard Board. I recognized a few names from their postings on WOV including one permanently banned member who seems to be using Gambler's Glen to make derogatory remarks about this site and the Wizard in particular.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
February 21st, 2012 at 5:04:01 AM
permalink
Voted yes simply because it seems like every thread which he posts in turns in to a 26-page flame war where its just a back and forth set of ridiculousness which really adds nothing to the grand scheme of things. He claims that he does nothing to incite these posts against him, but when there are 100 other people pointing the finger at you and you claim to be innocent, I think there is something to be said for that.
Also, I don't think that him playing roulette is necessarily the issue. There are plenty of people on here who have guilty pleasure games which they like to partake in, but the way that Ken goes about claiming his own success while denouncing the validity of mathematical truths is mind-boggling. His insistence that monitoring numbers and "practicing" roulette leads him to better results rubs the vast majority of people on this forum the wrong way, and the fact that he never backs down is what sets off the flaming in the first place.
I don't think Ken is a terrible guy, I just don't think he belongs on this particular forum. He doesn't really gain anything he doesn't already have, and he is just a nuisance to everyone around here.
Also, I don't think that him playing roulette is necessarily the issue. There are plenty of people on here who have guilty pleasure games which they like to partake in, but the way that Ken goes about claiming his own success while denouncing the validity of mathematical truths is mind-boggling. His insistence that monitoring numbers and "practicing" roulette leads him to better results rubs the vast majority of people on this forum the wrong way, and the fact that he never backs down is what sets off the flaming in the first place.
I don't think Ken is a terrible guy, I just don't think he belongs on this particular forum. He doesn't really gain anything he doesn't already have, and he is just a nuisance to everyone around here.
February 21st, 2012 at 5:06:55 AM
permalink
I'll be honest... the latest thread against him seemed to be started out of spite, as that was really the first I was aware of his doings. I post quite a bit, but they tend not to be about roulette or AP, so I guess our threads never really cross. Whether he deserved it or not, whomever started the latest war should probably also receive a warning, as to me, it was kind of an attack right out the gate. I'll vote maybe for this reason.
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
February 21st, 2012 at 5:08:44 AM
permalink
I was originally going to abstain, or vote 'maybe'. Sure, he's an irritant. Sure he goes against the grain. But is that enough?
He was kinda quiet for a while until the 'Is mr jjj ahead' thread got started. Is that his fault?
He also sometimes makes obscure references, causing members to feel excluded from conversations. Then again, it's hard to consider his rants and raves 'conversations'.
But after continuing to read that thread, I changed my mind and yoted 'yes' after reading this post:
Um, in one statement he insulted every member of both boards.
Go ahead and 86 the guy.
He was kinda quiet for a while until the 'Is mr jjj ahead' thread got started. Is that his fault?
He also sometimes makes obscure references, causing members to feel excluded from conversations. Then again, it's hard to consider his rants and raves 'conversations'.
But after continuing to read that thread, I changed my mind and yoted 'yes' after reading this post:
Even without any experience at the GG board he speaks of, it's easy to tell that he thinks little of it, and is equating WoV to the GG board.Quote: mrjjjQuote: YoDiceRoll11Nobody really but him knows most of his jokes. Apparently the GG board is some board some guy named Brian was on, or something, and he got offended by something over there. That's all I've been able to figure out from some of his incoherent ramblings.
Joke? No joke. It is/was a gambling forum with a TON of attacking and arguing. Hey, just like here.....the GG2 board. (lol)
Um, in one statement he insulted every member of both boards.
Go ahead and 86 the guy.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
February 21st, 2012 at 5:27:39 AM
permalink
Quote: TiltpoulI'll be honest... the latest thread against him seemed to be started out of spite, as that was really the first I was aware of his doings. I post quite a bit, but they tend not to be about roulette or AP, so I guess our threads never really cross. Whether he deserved it or not, whomever started the latest war should probably also receive a warning, as to me, it was kind of an attack right out the gate. I'll vote maybe for this reason.
I started the latest thread. It was not out of spite. I was interested in the OTHER members of the forum, and what they thought of someone making the preposterous statements that Ken made. Forgetting the mostly silly back and forth, I was stunned at how many forum members actually believe he is a lifetime winner! I wholeheartedly agree with the Wiz's weeklong ban, but I will vote for no permanent ban. For those who find the silly back and forth on the thread I started either useless or annoying, it is easily avoidable. The thread was started to discuss his claims specifically. I would say a forever ban would be appropriate if he ruined other threads that were about more serious gambling matters. He generally does not.
February 21st, 2012 at 6:59:08 AM
permalink
My only real justification for posting here is that I think I may have been the first person to openly suggest that Garnabby was a troll, back in this post, based on his comments over the previous several pages of that thread.Quote: WizardI've been getting a lot requests to ban mrjjj on the basis of trolling. You may recall the last troll to get kicked off was Garnabby.
With regard to SOOPOO's thread, I have no idea whether mrjjj is ahead lifetime. It would be a very unlikely but quite possible scenario that someone could conduct their "trial and error" studies of gambling by buying a $1 ticket in MegaMillions, hitting the jackpot, then continuing their trial-and-error technique for a lifetime of $5 wagers at roulette while never falling behind in their overall gambling. I consider it ludicrous to suggest that someone might have developed a legal technique by which to play roulette that gives them an advantage over the casino. Many of mrjjj's posts seem to be mocking other members of the forum and their beliefs in what I consider rational analysis. And many of his posts are just basically annoying.
Is this enough to warrant being banned? I doubt it. I wish he would go away, but I don't know that I can say he has done something so evil that he should be banned. (I wouldn't jump to his defense though.) I would at least be happier if all of his I-have-a-winning-record-at-roulette posts were confined to the "Betting Systems" forum and if that forum's threads didn't show up in the list of Recent Threads. That would make it much easier for me to avoid the annoying posts and flame wars.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:21:31 AM
permalink
Mr. W.
Godwin's Law alert ...
The key point is that Mr. J^3 hasn't obviously broken forum rules.
When I'm driving on the freeway and an aggressive driver starts tailgaiting me, I have the option to speed up, step on the brakes, or move over. Sometimes I step on the brakes, but I don't like myself when I do that. That's letting the driver make me aggressive right back. Sometimes I speed up, but that's acting out of fear. The best choice is to move over.
I am surprised how many people engage Mr. J^3, who is so obviously an aggressive driver. Just move over. His fight is irrelevant and he wants attention. So do millions of others. Message boards create anonymous aggressive posts, just as the highways turn otherwise nice people into mumbledolopers.
It must be stressful to have people lobby you to do something about Mr. J^3. To me, life is way too short to be a benevolent dictator.
At least no one is mentioning Hitler.
--Ms. D.
Godwin's Law alert ...
The key point is that Mr. J^3 hasn't obviously broken forum rules.
When I'm driving on the freeway and an aggressive driver starts tailgaiting me, I have the option to speed up, step on the brakes, or move over. Sometimes I step on the brakes, but I don't like myself when I do that. That's letting the driver make me aggressive right back. Sometimes I speed up, but that's acting out of fear. The best choice is to move over.
I am surprised how many people engage Mr. J^3, who is so obviously an aggressive driver. Just move over. His fight is irrelevant and he wants attention. So do millions of others. Message boards create anonymous aggressive posts, just as the highways turn otherwise nice people into mumbledolopers.
It must be stressful to have people lobby you to do something about Mr. J^3. To me, life is way too short to be a benevolent dictator.
At least no one is mentioning Hitler.
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
February 21st, 2012 at 7:39:42 AM
permalink
Please don't ban him. I find it entirely too entertaining to observe his disconnect with reality. I also enjoy watching his head explode.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
February 21st, 2012 at 7:42:01 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleI am surprised how many people engage Mr. J^3, who is so obviously an aggressive driver. Just move over.
Literally? :)
Sorry. but you have a good point. He's a troll, sure, and he knows the buttons to push. So just ignore him. Better yet, don't egg him on.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 21st, 2012 at 7:51:29 AM
permalink
I almost used the word "literally" just to mock myself in my post ... thanks for remembering ...Quote: NareedLiterally? :)
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
February 21st, 2012 at 7:51:48 AM
permalink
Quote: DocIs this enough to warrant being banned? I doubt it. I wish he would go away, but I don't know that I can say he has done something so evil that he should be banned. (I wouldn't jump to his defense though.) I would at least be happier if all of his I-have-a-winning-record-at-roulette posts were confined to the "Betting Systems" forum and if that forum's threads didn't show up in the list of Recent Threads. That would make it much easier for me to avoid the annoying posts and flame wars.
The ability to unsubscribe from forums and threads would help this a lot. I actually like Betting Systems threads, but I know a lot of people don't. The ability to mix/match your WoV experience would be ideal.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 21st, 2012 at 8:03:12 AM
permalink
I read far more than I comment, but I will add that he is far less irritating than mkl and Jerry Logan were. I don't even think he's in the same league. It can be annoying, but it is not so inflammatory as to be a substantial bother.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:04:00 AM
permalink
Voted no. If you don't like him don't get involved in the threads. I for one read that entire thing this morning. Why? It was entertaining as hell. The only rule I can see that MRJJJ violated was an insult. Got him 7 days in the slammer. What about the other 4 who personally insulted him. I believe I read "you are the stupidest person on this forum". That person should be banned as well.
I really don't see anything wrong with people coming on here and making claims. I've seen all kinds. If I don't like or don't believe I don't read or I don't participate. Nuff said.
Banning for life is pretty serious, therefore there should be a pretty serious infraction, not just we don't like him/her.
I really don't see anything wrong with people coming on here and making claims. I've seen all kinds. If I don't like or don't believe I don't read or I don't participate. Nuff said.
Banning for life is pretty serious, therefore there should be a pretty serious infraction, not just we don't like him/her.
February 21st, 2012 at 8:19:12 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleI almost used the word "literally" just to mock myself in my post ... thanks for remembering ...
You're welcome.
That's the kind fo thing I literally never forget :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 21st, 2012 at 8:31:19 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI view his behavior like that of a Holocaust denier preaching his message on a site about Judaism, even if done in a polite way.
I think, this is way too harsh to Ken (and also kinda insensitive to the Jewish) to compare his simple, harmless craving for attention to the cruel, racist, hateful, and (usually) criminal attitude of the xenophobes.
He is delusional, narcissistic, sometimes, annoying, usually obnoxious ... but totally harmless, and, I'll maintain, amusing. If he wasn't (amusing that is), his threads would not go on and on for fifty pages. The fact of the matter is (most) people like arguing with him (or with anyone else, who is clearly and completely wrong, and evidently has an inferior ability), because it makes us feel better about ourselves.
I say, keep him on. And for those who don't want seeing his ramblings, the solution is simple (and you know it) - just don't go into his threads (or threads other people open about him - kinda speaks to his being amusing too, doesn't it?).
Now, if he hijacks someone else's thread, and starts with his (lol) (cough) stuff there, that's an entirely different story. IIRC, this does not really happen often though.
I don't buy into "oh, banning for life is such a serious measure, he does not deserve it" kind of argument. I mean, this is an online forum for God sakes, he'll survive without it. More over, it would, probably, do him more good than harm, buy freeing up some of his time to actually get a life. Besides, this is Wizard's forum, he is entirely free to pick and choose who he wants to see here, and who he does not. You don't have to "deserve" to be banned - if Wizard does not like you, it is reason enough.
So, to me, this is not about justice or fairness at all. I think, the right question to ask (if any) here is "would the forum become more or less entertaining to the participants if mrjjj is banned?", and my answer to it is the latter ("less entertaining" that is).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 21st, 2012 at 8:32:55 AM
permalink
Well said Ms. D.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
February 21st, 2012 at 8:34:59 AM
permalink
I voted yes to the banning. Not so much for what Ken says, but for the impact that he has on others and the forum as a whole. I have him blocked, but that does little good when he's derailed literally (yes, literally) 7 of the 10 most recent threads when I log on. In order for Ken's presence to not worsen my WOV experience, I'd need to be able to block Ken, and responses to Ken, and responses to those responses.
Does Ken "test" other things the way that he tests roulette methods? How many other common sense things has Ken pointlessly investigated? For example, given how he acts here I'm shocked that he hasn't "tested" the conventional wisdom that stopping at red lights is a smart plan...
Does Ken "test" other things the way that he tests roulette methods? How many other common sense things has Ken pointlessly investigated? For example, given how he acts here I'm shocked that he hasn't "tested" the conventional wisdom that stopping at red lights is a smart plan...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 21st, 2012 at 8:42:32 AM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI have him blocked, but that does little good when he's derailed literally (yes, literally) 7 of the 10 most recent threads when I log on.
Literally? I only see two threads having to do with him in the recent threads ... both opened by people other than him, about him.
It also seems that he's been posting in two threads (about him (not) being up, and about math systems not working) for about two weeks almost exclusively (with an exception of a few random posts here or there).
On a separate note, it seems that people tend to get almost religious when it comes to gambler's fallacy. I mean, come on guys, he is not insulting anyone (or any thing) by his refusal to "believe" in math. Math is not God, and it also does not really need to be defended. It'll be ok :)
From where I stand, "not believing" that roulette cannot be beaten is very much equivalent to "not believing" that 0.999... is the same thing as 1, or that probability of not winning a martingale sequence with unlimited bankroll is zero. I guess, what I am saying is people have all kinds of hang ups, and "beliefs". I don't get on the "everyone's is entitled to their opinion" or "agree to disagree" bandwagon - there are "opinions" that are simply wrong. I am just saying, this is not religion, and you are not a missionary, you don't have to convince him that he is wrong, you can keep trying, but only if you find it entertaining.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 21st, 2012 at 9:03:11 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanLiterally? I only see two threads having to do with him in the recent threads ... both opened by people other than him, about him.
No, figuratively. Sarcasm button failed again:-) But there was this thread, the Mr JJJJJJJJ is ahead thread, and the all mathematical systems thread that were all MRjjjj all the time late last night.
This site has lots of frequent posters, and lots of meandering conversations. But there's only one guy filling pages and pages and pages with (lol) (cough) incoherent "posts." Mr jjjj fills this board with his crap almost as fast as those guys selling fresh dumps.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 21st, 2012 at 9:13:31 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 21st, 2012 at 9:20:00 AM
permalink
" If it was up to me I'd not ban him for being anti-ap or having wacky beliefs" I am sure Paigowdan read that with great relief.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:22:56 AM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
No, figuratively. Sarcasm button failed again:-) But there was this thread, the Mr JJJJJJJJ is ahead thread, and the all mathematical systems thread that were all MRjjjj all the time late last night.
Yes, but it was not him, who started those threads. It's not his "fault", that they are in the recent threads list. If other people start threads, that discuss you, and ask questions, either about you or directed at you, would not you feel an urge to reply in those threads too?
I mean, like it or not, he is an interesting person (meaning that he generates enough interest in other people to perpetually talk to him, and about him).
Quote:This site has lots of frequent posters, and lots of meandering conversations. But there's only one guy filling pages and pages and pages with (lol) (cough) incoherent "posts." Mr jjjj fills this board with his crap almost as fast as those guys selling fresh dumps.
Well, yeah ... but he is not talking to himself is he? Once again, he is not even starting those monstrous threads most of the time. Bottom line is - other people like talking to him
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 21st, 2012 at 9:31:46 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 21st, 2012 at 9:36:50 AM
permalink
Isn't the AP he refers to in his signature talking about AP roulette only? He doesn't seem to be concerned with any other casino game whatsoever.
Solo venimos, solo nos vamos. Y aqui nos juntamos, juntos que estamos.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:39:04 AM
permalink
I voted "no". And Wiz, you know that I've voted lobbied pretty passionately for some bannings. I consider mrjjj fairly benign.
Starting a negative thread about a forum member is kind of trolling in its own way, isn't it? If he blows off in a thread that was specifically started to ridicule him, is that so unusual? I don't believe he's ahead, but I don't care to call him out on it, either; after all, if you trust the math, there's no need to. You don't respond to the guy who tells you about his girlfriend the model who lives in Canada, and he had a picture of them together but his hard drive crashed and she's emailing it to him, but it keeps getting caught in the spam filter... you say, "Cool story, bro," and move on.
Starting a negative thread about a forum member is kind of trolling in its own way, isn't it? If he blows off in a thread that was specifically started to ridicule him, is that so unusual? I don't believe he's ahead, but I don't care to call him out on it, either; after all, if you trust the math, there's no need to. You don't respond to the guy who tells you about his girlfriend the model who lives in Canada, and he had a picture of them together but his hard drive crashed and she's emailing it to him, but it keeps getting caught in the spam filter... you say, "Cool story, bro," and move on.
A falling knife has no handle.
February 21st, 2012 at 9:39:41 AM
permalink
Quote: progrockerIsn't the AP he refers to in his signature talking about AP roulette only? He doesn't seem to be concerned with any other casino game whatsoever.
Bingo. MrJJJ lives, breathes and screws roulette (his words, not mine). Any reference to gambling IS only talking about roulette. This narrow minded view is what makes him unable to communicate clearly.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 21st, 2012 at 9:45:22 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
February 21st, 2012 at 10:19:49 AM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesYes and no. He continually tells me I'm not and AP and to keep believing such nonsense.
Well, if "AP" is defined as people looking for wheel bias only, then you're not AP. Let's hope the casinos in MI take Ken's view of things and keep the heat away...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
February 21st, 2012 at 10:54:38 AM
permalink
3 things he is not trying to hide:
1. He is only in here for the provocation. He is not interested in responses, only trying to get you guys to say specific things in specific ways.
2. He hates all advantage players, especially roulette advantage players.
3. He will keep posting no matter how daft he looks in the end. Even if it means reposting the same post 10 times even if there are no replys. And still waiting.
Unfortunately for himself he has posted all over the web for years and his timeline and winnings don`t add up.
Ban him ? Don`t know, he is just here for the trouble, so if it was my board i would kick his ass out. Then again, the amusement factor would be gone.
1. He is only in here for the provocation. He is not interested in responses, only trying to get you guys to say specific things in specific ways.
2. He hates all advantage players, especially roulette advantage players.
3. He will keep posting no matter how daft he looks in the end. Even if it means reposting the same post 10 times even if there are no replys. And still waiting.
Unfortunately for himself he has posted all over the web for years and his timeline and winnings don`t add up.
Ban him ? Don`t know, he is just here for the trouble, so if it was my board i would kick his ass out. Then again, the amusement factor would be gone.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:30:28 AM
permalink
I think he is here for the provocation, thats why i would warn and suspend him(like Michael did) and if he continued i would just be rid of the headache. I personally dont really pay much attention to him. i mean thats like him coming on here and arguing Michael Jordan was a bad basketball player and watch the board explode.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:40:17 AM
permalink
I voted "no" as well. I would have also voted no to MKL and JerryLogan, too.
As I've always thought, it's possible for someone to believe that a gambling "system" or "method" works for them without understanding the math behind it. That belief can be collaborated by very good luck. Since roulette is a very high variance game when betting single numbers, it's quite possible to be ahead over hundreds of hours of play through simple variance alone, so his method works for him. Another method that involves betting the month and the day of the month all of the time could equally work, in my opinion, provided that you have luck.
I would maintain as well that probably the best method for roulette is to bet previous numbers, as if there is any bias on the wheel, the best way to exploit it is to bet previous numbers. Does it overcome 5.26%? Absolutely not. That would be one heck of a wheel.
Still, trying to explain why a system won't work for everyone in the long run is impossible to explain to someone who is experiencing something different and seemingly doesn't understand basic statistics. His posts of "lol", and "cough", in my opinion is inane chatter meant to provoke a few certain members of this forum.
I never really understand these types of people and don't really care to. No reason to ban him though.
As I've always thought, it's possible for someone to believe that a gambling "system" or "method" works for them without understanding the math behind it. That belief can be collaborated by very good luck. Since roulette is a very high variance game when betting single numbers, it's quite possible to be ahead over hundreds of hours of play through simple variance alone, so his method works for him. Another method that involves betting the month and the day of the month all of the time could equally work, in my opinion, provided that you have luck.
I would maintain as well that probably the best method for roulette is to bet previous numbers, as if there is any bias on the wheel, the best way to exploit it is to bet previous numbers. Does it overcome 5.26%? Absolutely not. That would be one heck of a wheel.
Still, trying to explain why a system won't work for everyone in the long run is impossible to explain to someone who is experiencing something different and seemingly doesn't understand basic statistics. His posts of "lol", and "cough", in my opinion is inane chatter meant to provoke a few certain members of this forum.
I never really understand these types of people and don't really care to. No reason to ban him though.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 21st, 2012 at 11:46:01 AM
permalink
I first voted yes, but thinking back on my post I think he should be allowed to on, with the 7 day suspension being plenty of enough punishment. First off, I've got no place telling people what to think/how to gamble, and with the exception of the past few days you could actually learn a thing or two from some of the arguments he starts.
Hotty Toddy!!!
February 21st, 2012 at 3:24:22 PM
permalink
Mr.jjj's game is trolling the over analytical posters that are socially dysfunctional or "geeky". Basically if you have a post count that exceeds 1000 each year, haven't seen daylight in months, have cookie crumbs on your keyboard, and haven't been on a date with a real girl in years, if ever, then Mr. Jjj's game is to mess with you. As I've said in the past, don't feed the trolls.
You can't reason with them and you can't dazzle them with the facts. Their game is for you to take them seriously while they laugh at you for trying to set them straight. In the future, don't feed them.
You can't reason with them and you can't dazzle them with the facts. Their game is for you to take them seriously while they laugh at you for trying to set them straight. In the future, don't feed them.
February 21st, 2012 at 3:40:52 PM
permalink
I agree that mrjjj is trolling, but I don't believe posters should be banned on the basis of trolling alone - people who get trolled are at fault themselves. So, no.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
February 21st, 2012 at 3:44:14 PM
permalink
I hate to ban somebody for having an unpopular opinion. Certainly Dan's opinion that card counting and hole carding is cheating is not popular around here, but he is a gentlemen both on the board and in real life, and is welcome to stay.
However, I think the comparison I made in my original post is appropriate. If you started a Jewish social site and somebody posted a 100 messages a day denying the Holocaust, although somewhat politely, setting off the expected firestorm, would you kick him off? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I'm trying to foster a community where math is respected and John Patrick/Rob Singer type nonsense is not worthy of discussion.
It looks like it the matter is concluded anyway, as I said I was looking to get at least 80% in favor and it stands now at 44%, not counting the maybes.
However, I think the comparison I made in my original post is appropriate. If you started a Jewish social site and somebody posted a 100 messages a day denying the Holocaust, although somewhat politely, setting off the expected firestorm, would you kick him off? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I'm trying to foster a community where math is respected and John Patrick/Rob Singer type nonsense is not worthy of discussion.
It looks like it the matter is concluded anyway, as I said I was looking to get at least 80% in favor and it stands now at 44%, not counting the maybes.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 21st, 2012 at 3:59:39 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI hate to ban somebody for having an unpopular opinion. Certainly Dan's opinion that card counting and hole carding is cheating is not popular around here, but he is a gentlemen both on the board and in real life, and is welcome to stay.
However, I think the comparison I made in my original post is appropriate. If you started a Jewish social site and somebody posted a 100 messages a day denying the Holocaust, although somewhat politely, setting of the expected firestorm, would you kick him off? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I'm trying to foster a community where math is respected and John Patrick/Rob Singer type nonsense is not worthy of discussion.
It looks like it the matter is concluded anyway, as I said I was looking to get at least 80% in favor and it stands now at 44%, not counting the maybes.
You seemed to need a couple of goes around for the Trolls to see if they change their ways, or at least are polite about it.
I guarantee on return you'll get a wave of PMs from him complaining about other "attacks" and "gang tactics" by the crowd. And we'll get a wave of posts on this thread and others about "he won't back down" "rookies" "not apologizing for doing well" "aren't you all pro's (cough)" and "same rule for all of us, yes?". With a few "problem solved for you, yes" ' s in there.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
