Misc WizardOfVegas Forum is Dying

MrV, I think so little of you as a person, that I have basically stopped responding to anything you say. You are irrelevant in my book. And IMO, you are a troll by the purest definition. You bounce around from site to site, just to stir up trouble. I just can't remember you ever adding much that was constructive or intended to help anyone....just stir the pot. THAT seems to be how you get your jollies.

But, I am going to respond because you comments are so ludicrous. What I stated at LV Sun was an opinion. In my opinion, based on my experience, Michael Shackleford is dishonest and the most dishonest person I have come across in the Las Vegas AP/gambling community and one of two of the most dishonest people I have come across in the gambling/AP community as a whole. In the U.S.A., we still have a right to express our opinion (although I wonder for how long).

Zero integrity is also my opinion. I don't know what else to say about a guy who will express the truth to you privately, but is unwilling to do so publicly and states that he is afraid of the fall out for fixing something he knows is wrong and that HE handled wrongly and unfairly. That is my definition of zero integrity.

Take it from me, a guy who paid for consultation with a legal firm specializing in defamation cases, there is nothing defamatory about expressing one's opinion. Defamation is a very high hurdle and almost impossible on any kind of internet message board which asks for opinions. And the message section following a newspaper article is just that, a message board asking for opinions.

But, if Wizard thinks he has a case of 'actual malice' against me....he should go for it. That's actually a page right out of Qfit's playbook (along with most dictators). Silence the critics.

 

Interesting case study on how lunatics become lunatics unfolding.

 

I am aware of Standford Wong's history (as well as his real name). While I learned a lot from Standford via his book and even much, much more by reading through the archives of BJ21, I have never "handed him a halo". I placed him in the exact same light that I saw Shackleford. It made me unwilling to meet him in person although I was willing to interact with him online. As a matter of fact there was a couple green chip parties that I very much wanted to attend, as it was a final chance to meet a couple BJ21 members that I admired and had great respect for, that were in failing health and passed away soon afterwards. My decision not to attend was very much influenced by the fact that Stanford would be in attendance. I just could not overcome that hurdle.

 

Wet blanket, or fuckwit? How's your gambling stock, V?

 

Actually, I liquidated it all, when the price was right.

I have sold all of my shares of MGM, LVS, NTEK and NTGL.

I profited on each sale.

Thanks for asking.

 

I consider myself an existentialist and a keen student of history and human behavior.

I could give two shits about AP, so I've little to say about that topic.

That's your bag, not mine.

My interest / focus is on craps, certain high limit slots, the ridiculousness of dice setting, the mindset of gamblers and the absurdity of Las Vegas and all that it represents.

I've haunted these gambling boards for many years, and plan to continue to do so.

I do indeed get some of my "jollies" by pointing out flaws in people and their arguments: can't help it, it's what I like to do.

Ah, schadenfreude.

Watching you self-destruct has been very enjoyable, frankly: keep it up.

Whether you respond to my posts is not as important to me as my responding to yours.

 

My apologies. I forgot to address this absurd statement. For over a year now, people, members of both sites, some hoping for a different resolution, some playing intermediate have been dangling this carrot as if there was some sort of possibility, when there absolutely never was.

Early on I was told by a respected and highly successful AP and member of WoV and this site, that I should just lay low. He told me he though I was banned unfairly but that I should lay low and make no waves. Someone else told me that Mike was "trying to figure out a way to bring me back".

I knew none of that was true. Mike didn't want to bring me back. He always had that power. I go back to his first PM to me after he banned me. He said that given the choice between me and Qfit, he would choose me. What a bizarre statement! That is exactly the choice he had or felt he had and he did exactly the opposite. BTW, I didn't ask him to choose....the other party did.

The moment Mike told me in private that he knew he had handled the situation unfairly, but couldn't let me back because there would be consequences from Norm, I knew he wasn't man enough to do what he knew was right. I didn't understand his control Norm held over him, but I knew it was there.

So those dangling this carrot saying things like "any possibility of you returning to WoV" are full of shit. Mike has never been trying to come up with a way. It's there....been there all along. All he had to do, was do what he knew was right. But he couldn't bring himself to do that for fear of "consequences from Norm" and I suspect some goofy notion that other people would think less of him somehow. I never got threat either.

But the bottom line is there never was any chance of my return. Mike wasn't and still isn't strong enough or man enough to do that. So I wish you would not treat me as such an idiot as to make this statement. What Mike would like is for me to lose interest and go away and stop criticizing him. And that's probably what the whole "dangling the carrot of a possible return was about". Not about a possible return...that was never going to happen, but more a way to hope to keep me in check.

BUT, I am not going to lose interest. I made Mike that promise and I intend to honor that promise to him for the next 45 years and I don't care who likes it and who doesn't.

 

"Zero integrity" is not likely to generate any legal backlash. You'd have to get into definitions of "integrity" and "hypocrisy," and frankly, a site that is owned by casinos giving advice as to how to play in casinos is going to have a rough time defending its integrity, whatever integrity is. Shackleford is the pointman for the casinos in this case, so he's going to have some logical contortioning to do to explain his situation and his integrity.

KJ is using his first amendment rights. As I said in another post, it's not exactly Marquess of Queensbury to use asymmetrical warfare with a pseudonym in public when the other party is out there real-naming it, but it happens all the time.

 

KewlJ, why not give that Sun reporter, Thomas Moore, a call and ask him if he'd be interested in hearing about the real Shackleford? Steer him to the forums...invite him here. Just have him look at the WOV suspension list and the stupid lame reasons on it. Much more interesting than blackjack tips that everyone has known about for decades. It's not like it's a big secret and manboy didn't invent them.

 

Thanks for answering, but I think you still have some "stock in gambling" of the figurative sort.

 

Not sure Wiz fits in a legal kinda way. It could be hard for wiz to prove damages in this case.

Public Figure

A description applied in Libel and Slander actions, as well as in those alleging invasion of privacy, to anyone who has gained prominence in the community as a result of his or her name or exploits, whether willingly or unwillingly.

If a plaintiff in a libel or slander action qualifies as a public figure, he or she must show that the libelous or slanderous conduct of the defendant was motivated out of actual malice as required in the case of new york times co. v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
public figure
n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). (See: defamation, libel, slander)

 

Aside from Shacky having been a point man for gambling long before he sold his sites, good post.

Psychologists who study and treat the many forms of gambling addiction, and the mathematicians who study risk analysis, game theory and statistics, and consult with the casinos, all concur on the same simple gambling advice - don't start. Yes, there are still all sorts of pure (casino) gamblers, some of who win, but they are not the academics who give their advice for academic reasons and merit. (Don't use your ad hoc degree or profession, or other station to push gambling if you aren't willing to listen to its true academics, or form the same academic allegiance with them. In any event, there exists no such association of professional gamblers, or standard body of advice other than the various related areas of study taken individually.)

 

I agree with these sentiments, but I tend to frame them in the larger context that many elements of a consumer society are addictive, so compartmentalizing various behaviors that somehow all got labeled "gambling" seems somehow inappropriate.

I don't claim to know what's worse -- five hours a day watching television or blowing 20% of your income on video poker. Time is a very valuable commodity, but when people work in capitalist societies, the value of time in and of itself tends to get downplayed. I don't claim to have much opinion on what is or isn't an appropriate use of resources or time. Yeah, video poker is addictive. So is reading emails or reading texts on cell phones. Dopamine triggers in all of them. Watching people sit down to dinner and put their cell phones on the table is like watching meth heads start twitching as their last hits wear off.

"Gambling" is only a word. It's a disparate bunch of activities that don't have much in common. Some are more addictive than others. I think it's more useful to discuss the addictive qualities of individual behaviors, whatever they may be. I wish I had a great slang phrase for the nervousness people experience when their phones sit there and they can't check their texts. Any suggestions?

 

Mike is a math guy, he probably figured what would cost him the most, gaining face with you while potentially losing profit elsewhere. He chose profit. There is no loyalty with money involved.

You may actually have a stronger case against qshit than Mike would have against you. But you may never attempt it as you want to keep anatomy which may be more important to you in the long run.

I agree with many points this time and for sure about V.

 

"I wish I had a great slang phrase for the nervousness people experience when their phones sit there and they can't check their texts. Any suggestions?"

Cellheads?
Twitards?

 

Kewlj is owed a public apology by Michael Shackelford and Norm Wattenberger.

 

Welcome back IBYA, nice to see you again.

 

How about Twitwit, in honor of Trump?

 

Thats a two way street. What comes around goes around.

 

You do advantage play? You're stretching the truth there just a little old boy. By your own admission your best play is shoving your slot club card in unoccupied machines and hoping a rich geriatric plops their ass down and racks up points for you. Your idol even called it a bottom feeder play or similar. He was being kind.

Next thing you'll be flopping your genitals out at a blackjack table, capping your bet when the dealer looks away in disgust and calling it an advantage play. Don't get ideas please!