kewl says: "message boards are anonymous, but that changes when someone posts publically claiming to be a well known figure such as an MIT team member."
There were many MIT members over the years, and most of them are not individually well-known. Therefore, posting (anonymously at that!) as one of them would not be much of a boast, and though the post defends the record of the MIT ventures, the post doesn't look boast-motivated to me.
kewl says: "when someone post out of the blue, claiming to be someone known, they have to expect people to be skeptical."
The poster isn't claiming to be someone known. The poster simply claimed to be a member of the former MIT team. That's not a big deal. There are quite a few ex-MIT players running around the casinos still and also running around the Web sites.
kewl says: "If they have something to share, why have they not posted before?? If this person is who they say, I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing from her. Ken would surely welcome her as a chat guest. Quite frankly I am as skeptical of this as if Revere or Uston all of the sudden posted."
Believe it or not, Ed Thorp has posted once in a blue moon on bj21. There are a number of misconceptions related to these boards. First, the boards are not indispensable, and in fact, most pros are not active participants here. MANY pros do not even read these boards. Some pros are not even aware of the existence of these boards. Most of my own teammates do not even lurk on these boards, and question/criticize my extensive participation here. Second, when pros do participate, it is not usually out of a general desire to "contribute." The occasional post by the lurking pro is usually motivated by: (1) boredom [Wheelchair goes through phases where he gets bored, rediscovers the boards, participates for a few days, then gets bored of the boards, then disappears for another few years], (2) disinformation, or an attempt to divert a thread away from a sensitive topic, (3) a need to correct the historical record.
Many times I have sat watching a thread develop, but then can't help but jump in because someone makes a gross misstatement of the historical record (such as "Grosjean was backroomed while playing BJ at Caesars"). I consider it likely that the ex-MIT players cringe when reading parts of the BDtH books, watching "21," and reading these boards, where misconceptions are rampant and most of what is written is based on speculation by those who have no first-hand knowledge. I don't find it at all strange that an ex-MIT player would come out of the woodwork to make a post to clarify some issues. The reason these people show up with new accounts is often because they don't even read the boards, but get tipped off by a friend/teammate who does.
None of the specific information in the post makes me question the author's credibility. For instance, I certainly think that in practice, comps would have kept expenses low. While comps accrue to the name of the BP, it is common on my own crew for the BP to get a room for the spotter (at a casino played on a previous trip). The post contained no voodoo, no advocacy of a bogus playing system, no flames, no attacks on another poster.
Skepticism is always healthy here, and we probably won't know one way or another, but if forced to bet, I'd put my money on "Real Deal."
