Misc WizardOfVegas Forum is Dying

All he has to do is have Axel organize one of his "teams" to have a 1000 of those player's cards made up, and dispersed throughout the city. He only has to thing bigger, like the Wiz and his dream of a 10 million-dollar marijuana grow-op investment.

 

I don't know where the difficulty is on separating present discussion from a rehashing of your opinion of how you were treated or what happened leading up to your ouster from WoV.

I am aware of your opinion regarding everything in the next five paragraphs you wrote after what is quoted above and none of that has anything to do with my post to you in the slightest. My post really wasn't meant to address what you said in the LVSun, but it was mostly to address the bullshit rhetoric in your recent post calling Wizard not a, 'Friend to Gamblers,' or suggesting that working for the LCB family of sites somehow diminishes anything he has done before that.

I found your statements on that site vindictive and unnecessary, but I'm mainly suggesting you should back away from your demonstrably untrue position that Wizard is not a, 'Friend to gamblers.' That is the whole purpose of WoV which, need I remind you, started out as the essentially non-profit, "Mike's gambling page," and grew from there.

Essentially, the guy took a passion for both gambling and mathematics, a hobby of sorts, and turned it into something resoundingly successful. That success led to the ability to monetize the sites (which was done long before LCB) and opportunities in both the brick-and-mortar casino industry (Venetian) as well as what he currently does for LCB after selling the sites.

But, if you talk about, "Them and Us," don't forget that Wizard also fairness tested games and designed casino games prior to his involvement with the Venetian. The point is that he was, "Them," prior to working for the Venetian or working for LCB and nobody really seemed to have a problem with it, then. That's also not taking into consideration that the sites had long been a revenue channel by way of advertising online casinos, though for a long time there was an exclusivity with Bodog/Bovada.

There would be no reason to worry about his association with the Venetian, he'd be one of the first two tell you that card counters are among the people casinos need least worry about.

When was the site NOT associated with online casino organizations? Most notably, as an advertiser for online casinos! People treat this LCB deal like him working for them and the fact that they make most of their money via online casino affiliates is some new thing. That's how WoO/WoV basically always made its money after the sites started becoming monetized.

My point is that the information has always been there and the information that is available to gamblers, freely I may add, is unchanged and constantly has new material and content being added to it. The library that is WoO/WoV grows ever larger. The information is there. The information is free. People can use (or not) the information to whatever ends they like...that has never changed.

 

I imagine there may have been, at one point, but I agree that there is certainly no chance of that happening now. I guess my point was that your LVSun post accomplishes nothing because there is no objective that you can meaningfully accomplish, at this point.

Well, there you have it then. No matter how you slice it, if it means so much more to you than it does to him...if there is winning and losing in this situation (and I don't think there actually is) you lose.

 

Hey, it's BWC and Oops, nice to see you guys!

Throwing up I did a, "Bottom-Feeder," advantage play that I've already admitted was a bottom-feeder advantage play. Sick burn, dudes!

 

I just want to comment that, whatever Shackleford's motives before and presently, there is no real way to evaluate the effects his research and advice have had on the general public. It's simply impossible to say. Most of the activities he's analyzed have addictive qualities to them. Allowing people to "play longer" on negative expectation games is likely to reinforce addictive behaviors, so in the long run, it may (and probably is) a bad thing. No "friend of the public" there unless one thinks "time on machine" means something.

His site has the info to steer people to positive expectation games such as blackjack and rare vp opportunities plus games of opinion. The danger here is to ignore the possibility of cross-addiction, wherein mastering positive expectation games doesn't mean the individual can stick to the positive expectation games. Phil Ivey appears to be the poster boy for this kind of problem.

So one cannot really categorically state that Shackleford has done some global good to the public at large. He may have done damage.

 

Phil Ivey is more likely the poster boy for hugely positive loss rebates, my guess is that Borgata and Crockfords are just the only two casinos (so far, at least) who didn't want to pay.

I also understand your position in the first two paragraphs and I may not wholly disagree. Again, I fall back on my position that the information is there and that the information is free, people may do with it as they like.

The premise I start with, when considering your average visitor to one of the sites, is that the person already gambles and/or is interested in gambling. To me, it's better that they go into it armed with information. As long as we're not calling negatives positives or anything like that, I mean, Wizard has always told it like it is when it comes to gambling and that hasn't ever changed.

 

Oh yes, Wizard always tells it like it is....when it's convenient for HIM. So what happened when he met juicy Jennie, a woman half his age, to *cough* play some blackjack ? Why did that meeting, completely off the forum, prompt Mr Transparecy to ban her?

His job at the Venetian has been mentioned several times. Why did Mr Transparency get fired before even settling into the job? The job that had him giving up all his other consulting businesses etc? What do you suppose happened?

 

I don't recall much about the JuicieJennie fiasco other than something must have happened that subsequently got her banned from the forum, but was later resolved, as she was allowed back on the forum. I see that she is Banned again, but that appears to be due to her resigning from the Forum, for reasons unknown to me. She has not logged in since September of 2014.

I usually don't tend to worry too much about things that happened three years ago, but in this case, I don't know that I had all the details in the first place.

I do know that Wizard made a post concerning his job at the Venetian that he later deleted, but he may have made another one after that. Anything he has said publicly about the matter is also 100% of what I know about it, so you have access to that information just the same as I do, so I have no reason to answer to that as you can look it up yourself. As far as that is concerned, his statement on the matter can be found on his blog:

http://wizardofvegas.com/member/wizard/blog/3/

Would I tell you if I had any more details about these things than that? No. Do I actually have any more details than that? Again, no. When it comes to a person's affairs with other people or a person's employment, I usually just listen to whatever information is volunteered and don't ask questions about things that are none of my business.

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to speculate...taking manboy's upstanding character into account of course.

 

Long as Shacky is sucking money on it, and his new bosses are sucking money on it, I think it's damaging in both the specific and general senses. This also seems to imply that any "positive advantage" stuff there is as useless in the black-box or bottom-line analysis.

What is unclear, who actually believes what about whom is being helped. From the sixth-grade grammar and cognitive skills over there, displayed by all currently active members, one has to wonder. I know that Mission and Babalot are obviously propping things up there, but not so sure of the others. In any event, they are all hopelessly lost; it's the dabblers we have to focus on if any.

 

So out of curiosity, if I posted on WoV what I just posted here, what would the response be? I don't think anything I said just now is out there or mean-spirited. It's pretty obvious, in fact.

I've never posted there, so I'm tempted to give it a go. I may have signed up there ages ago, but I never visit the site.

 

Honestly, it's one of the most ridiculous stances I've seen. There's also no way to truly evaluate someone else's effects on the general public or categorically state someone has had a positive effect on the global good or public at large. You imply he's "done damage" to the gambling community or people in general (who read his stuff).

Even more ridiculous, if you don't visit the site -- what makes you think anything you said about it is accurate? If it's based on what KJ has said here....you know he has a pretty awful record of being a straight-shooter.

 

Well, RS, here's the reason for my "ridiculous" stance. I've been a sports handicapper for 40 years. I was part of Marc Lawrence's crew for awhile. Had the best decade-long record in the invitational Wise Guys contest for a stretch of 10 years. I had clients I spoke to daily who were CEOs, pilots, lawyers, accountants. I even had Billy Walters for a year.

Here's what I realized, although it took me 20 years to realize it. No matter how well you do specifically guiding people or recommending specific things, they get sucked into the behavioral elements of it and they do more than what you recommend, and it almost always has a negative effect. You can have the most wondrous year in college football, and all that does for the majority of people is give them a license to go bet more games "on their own" or double on Sunday NFL or triple up on the Monday night game.

So, at some point, you come to the realization that unless you are hands-on betting the money for them, you are probably doing them more harm than good as a group. And even when you are hands-on handling things, that doesn't necessarily mean you've solved the issue, but at least you've done what you can to not create behavioral issues.

The idea that you are not, to some degree, responsible for any damages, is self-serving and inaccurate.

 

Bad memory? I was fairly certain that every member had their eyes glued to their screens watching that entire saga unfold. I remember it like it was yesterday.

IIRC while at the Venetian he was adamantly opposed and outspoken about things such as 6:5 blackjack and another various player ass fuckings. They didn't like this attitude and no longer wanted him there.

I would like KJ to tell me what publicly known gambling figure has not "sold out"?

 

Your last sentence here is not what you implied in your earlier post.

There are also two things to consider -- intent and personal responsibility. Mike's intent has been and is to help people gamble better (whether it is to lose less or play longer [aka more entertainment for their value], or be a winning player). The things he writes about and suggests actually works. It's not like he's giving people false hope and recommending people use some BS money management system, giving them an illusion they are winning players. People are responsible for the choices they make. It's stupid to blame someone who's trying (and is) helping people to gamble smarter. Are high school chemistry teachers to blame because some of their students will grow up to be meth cooks? Are math teachers to blame because some of their students will become accountants and financial advisers who will fuck people over and/or "cook the books"?

So then what's the solution? Instead of teaching people how to be smarter gamblers, the solution is the abstinence solution and promote anti-gambling and tell people to never gamble because they may become addicted? It's not like he's going out of his way into people's homes promoting different gambling strategies. If you're searching google for gambling tips, you're likely either already a degenerate (or would become a degenerate with or without reading WOO/WOV), or you're just a person who wants to be a bit smarter with his money when he gambles.

I think it's well known in the gambling community and people in general that gambling addiction exists. It's not like people don't know about gambling addiction and it's a total surprise, "Omg, you can get addicted to gambling!? Why didn't anyone ever tell me!??"

 

I didn't say there was a solution. I didn't suggest Shackleford was the primary, or even a major, element in people doing worse than they would otherwise do. What I am saying is he's part of the equation and not blameless.

What I am also saying is that as far as casino gambling goes, training someone into doing well in the moment with proper strategy and positive expectation games, usually results in them doing no better long term than the untrained because the stopping points for gamblers aren't days or hours or number of hands but bankroll. And a trained person who can't stick to what works is not necessarily going to do better than an untrained person because they will both lose and cease when they run out of bankroll.

As far as the whole personal responsibility thing goes, if you check social science research, you'll discover that in the huge majority of studies, human beings overestimate their control of situations and their own behaviors. Context and habits are almost always underestimated by people. People basically almost always think they have more control than they do. So I'm not big on the "people control their own fate" schtick. If that were the case, I don't think we'd be exposed to between 4000 and 5000 ads a day, up from 400 or 500 circa 1970.

 

Jean Scott

 

Shackleford and straight-shooter are words that don't go together.

 

Shackleford is in the club with Dancer and Sklansky. They sell information to the public on how to beat the casinos then turn right around and sell information (consulting) to casinos on how to keep from getting beat by the public. They play both ends against the middle. All three are darksiders.

 

Thanks for that! Our brains make up their minds on their own twenty minutes before we "decide" to go out and buy something.

Shacky is just some guy who couldn't make it as an actuary, and turned to gambling, his childhood dream, later in life. Do you think that we would be talking about him were he still an actuary? Not that anyone is really talking about him, now, anymore, if ever. He took a dead-end quick-fix road by trading off on his academic credentials, and reputation as a local actuary. People rarely do that sort of thing. He couldn't even hold down an entry-level job at a casino for longer than three months at the height of his limited "popularity". His site is deserted and intellectually void, now, especially compared with its first few years. He has nothing left to trade off on. Just some schmuck who "did it his way".