The Rx.com welcomes Wild Bill into its stable of writers. Check out his first column on the dangers of betting on games just because they are on TV by going to our home page. www.theprescription.com
mediocre at best, i knew bill was hard up for cash, like they say those who can, bet, those who cannot write.
"Consider sports betting as an investment, not a gamble." Boring cliche, after cliche, i thought bill could do better, and this whole banal thing of watching the game after it's done, if you can't watch a game with patience and stillness of mind BEFORE it's over then you might as well quit gambling.
Gambling literature is a cliche ibso facto, not because the subject is limited, which it is, but because no one would spill the beans of his know how and trade in an article unless he or she had no know how.
Amateur stuff, bring butch back.
"Consider sports betting as an investment, not a gamble." Boring cliche, after cliche, i thought bill could do better, and this whole banal thing of watching the game after it's done, if you can't watch a game with patience and stillness of mind BEFORE it's over then you might as well quit gambling.
Gambling literature is a cliche ibso facto, not because the subject is limited, which it is, but because no one would spill the beans of his know how and trade in an article unless he or she had no know how.
Amateur stuff, bring butch back.
Thanks Bill. Good read i thought. The problem with national TV arises when a player looks into the tv guide before considering a game to bet. I follow this advice somewhat as the last 2 Sundays I have watched Rocky 1 & II over NFL. I do turn on the other sets for the games but focused more on the movie. In the nfl, i am so used to seeing "run up the middle", play not to lose football that I get bored, although Spurrier is trying to change that
Thanks
I thought better than mediocre.
Thanks
I thought better than mediocre.
I was a bit disappointed as well. WildBill's stuff on the forums is great as he targets intelligent bettors here. In the article he was clearly targeting a very unsophisticated audience -- the kind who have never gambled before and never read a gambling book. It came across as "don't forget to look both ways before crossing the road". OK, it's true, but most of us are beyond that.
The audience going to the RX home page is a bit different than those going to the posting forum. We have more first-time readers on the home page. Therefore - though this is "basic" gambling advice - it is a proper way to begin the teaching process to those just beginning this "hobby" called sports betting.
Pretty funny Jack, you think I am doing this to avoid going on welfare?
And Jack, I admire your ability to be a completely patient and mentally balanced person before the game starts when you have money on the line, because I think that is something that would describe very few bettors, even experienced ones.
I was asked to contribute and that is what I intend to do. Some things I write may not directly apply to you, but unfortunately space limits and the diverse crowd that comes here makes it difficult to always write something that pleases everyone. I gladly accept any criticism, after all this is a completely new venture to me and I hope I get better with time.
I was asked to contribute and that is what I intend to do. Some things I write may not directly apply to you, but unfortunately space limits and the diverse crowd that comes here makes it difficult to always write something that pleases everyone. I gladly accept any criticism, after all this is a completely new venture to me and I hope I get better with time.
Anyone who has read Wild Bill on the posting forum knows he is extremely knowledgeable about the industry and the issues facing it.
Feedback, good or bad, is appreciated by most writers. Obviously positive feedback is more welcomed, but if negative feedback is constructive and makes sense it can be appreciated, too.
This crowd can be extremely tough Wild Bill, so hang in. There are some very intelligent posters out there. Sometimes, though, you have to search to find them.
Perhaps one of your future articles might be on what you think is going to happen in Washington in regards to Internet betting. You've had some excellent takes on that in the posting forum.
Feedback, good or bad, is appreciated by most writers. Obviously positive feedback is more welcomed, but if negative feedback is constructive and makes sense it can be appreciated, too.
This crowd can be extremely tough Wild Bill, so hang in. There are some very intelligent posters out there. Sometimes, though, you have to search to find them.
Perhaps one of your future articles might be on what you think is going to happen in Washington in regards to Internet betting. You've had some excellent takes on that in the posting forum.
Some people kill me, LOL. Not to say everyone isn't entitled to their opinion, just think the bar is set too high for most up here. Keep in mind the folks who read off-shore are probably more sophisticated gamblers than the other 95% who post in the pick forums.
The other part is I did enjoy it and don't think it was directed solely to squares anyway. Sure we all know not to bet TV games as they are a bankroll drainer but there was some good insite involved beyond that. I always believed the problem stemmed from forcing action in rather than the part he commented about, remaining objective. Anyway to each it's own but nothing wrong with that article IMO.
The other part is I did enjoy it and don't think it was directed solely to squares anyway. Sure we all know not to bet TV games as they are a bankroll drainer but there was some good insite involved beyond that. I always believed the problem stemmed from forcing action in rather than the part he commented about, remaining objective. Anyway to each it's own but nothing wrong with that article IMO.
