I noticed that Stephen Nover is on the list of people that will be attending the party in Vegas. Ask him if the poster who had him as his guest at the London Club and also at the Bally Sunday Brunch with Wagstaff should be considered a rookie. He will laugh. And then he may laugh again. He recently ask me to send him a list of posters that I thought were good and bad. He may get those from many different sources which he considers crediable. He may make a fun type of article out of it. He said that he would not give anyones name but he has my permission to say that I placed BEANTOWNJIM at the top of the bad list and next in line was JJGOLD.
I can't disagree with the two choices on your list. Beaner was funny at one time but is now obsessed with getting the $660 that he took a shot on. You still haven't told me about the book that canceled your bet. You're still a rookie until a find out a little more about you. Don't let it get you down. Some rookies start off hitting HR's right away.
Rook- My opinions of people are based on the interactions that I have with them not from what others tell me unless that's the only thing that I have to go on. So far you are agreeing with CBS in a situation where they are 100% in the wrong. Until I read more of your posts this is what I'll base my opinion of you on.
Raider,
If you read all of my post on this situation, you will find that I think that ANY book that has the authority to cancel a bet unilaterially is putting the player in a no win situation. At very least, all books should have those issues resolved by a third party. If the rule exist anywhere it is subject to being used and a player thinking they have been screwed. For this site or anyother site to work on a book for exercising the rule is to me at best strange. The rule and the way it CAN be administered should be attacked long before anyone feels wronged by a unilaterial action by the book.
So, what you are saying is that if a poster is swiming upstream from the majority of the posters here that they are automaticly a rookie or have no credibility. I certainly do not conceed to you or anyone that my position on this issue is wrong. While I am perfectly able to agree to disagree in a civil manner. There were many here that were attacking a book who otherwise has a stellar record in a manner that was from my view far from civil.
P.S. Since I am an old fart, I was taught that you respect everyone until they give you reason not to respect them. Thus, the number of post that one may have is not something that I ever consider. If I put stock in number of post, I would have to take my one poster off the list of Good posters that I sent Stephen. Professor Quincy A Wagstaff --- hands down the best
[This message was edited by beentheredonethat on July 01, 2003 at 09:59 PM.]
If you read all of my post on this situation, you will find that I think that ANY book that has the authority to cancel a bet unilaterially is putting the player in a no win situation. At very least, all books should have those issues resolved by a third party. If the rule exist anywhere it is subject to being used and a player thinking they have been screwed. For this site or anyother site to work on a book for exercising the rule is to me at best strange. The rule and the way it CAN be administered should be attacked long before anyone feels wronged by a unilaterial action by the book.
So, what you are saying is that if a poster is swiming upstream from the majority of the posters here that they are automaticly a rookie or have no credibility. I certainly do not conceed to you or anyone that my position on this issue is wrong. While I am perfectly able to agree to disagree in a civil manner. There were many here that were attacking a book who otherwise has a stellar record in a manner that was from my view far from civil.
P.S. Since I am an old fart, I was taught that you respect everyone until they give you reason not to respect them. Thus, the number of post that one may have is not something that I ever consider. If I put stock in number of post, I would have to take my one poster off the list of Good posters that I sent Stephen. Professor Quincy A Wagstaff --- hands down the best
[This message was edited by beentheredonethat on July 01, 2003 at 09:59 PM.]
Beenthere- I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion. I guess I'm guilty of profiling. Although it's not considered politically correct I do use it for posters. Sometimes I will take a look at the number of posts that a person makes along with the topic that he posts about. Sometimes it helps me and other times it hurts. In your case a made a rush decision that was wrong.
I noticed that you think that there's only one good poster at the RX. What criteria are you using to determine a good poster? Also since that person has a low number of posts, how can you exclude Judge?
I noticed that you think that there's only one good poster at the RX. What criteria are you using to determine a good poster? Also since that person has a low number of posts, how can you exclude Judge?
Raider,
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said there was only one good poster at the rx nor did I limit my view of "good posters" to the rx. I just decided to only list one to send to Stephen. From my view, Wagstaff, is in a league by himself. He is perhaps the most interesting and entertaining person that I have ever known. And, if you ever see some of his handicapping work, you should be careful to limit the number of times you have the other side. But, why am I talking so highly of someone who has stiffed me on a bet of Sunday Brunch at Ballys? Never mind I have not been in town when he was there since he lost the bet.
There are many fine posters in many different forums and that certainly includes the rx. The number of post had nothing to do with my choice. The judge should not feel slighted by not being included on my very short list nor should anyone else.
On the other hand, my bad list should be a place of honor and lively battles should be fought to gain admission. Clearly, what I think is not important and should have ZERO impact on anyone.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said there was only one good poster at the rx nor did I limit my view of "good posters" to the rx. I just decided to only list one to send to Stephen. From my view, Wagstaff, is in a league by himself. He is perhaps the most interesting and entertaining person that I have ever known. And, if you ever see some of his handicapping work, you should be careful to limit the number of times you have the other side. But, why am I talking so highly of someone who has stiffed me on a bet of Sunday Brunch at Ballys? Never mind I have not been in town when he was there since he lost the bet.
There are many fine posters in many different forums and that certainly includes the rx. The number of post had nothing to do with my choice. The judge should not feel slighted by not being included on my very short list nor should anyone else.
On the other hand, my bad list should be a place of honor and lively battles should be fought to gain admission. Clearly, what I think is not important and should have ZERO impact on anyone.
