zengrifter said:
I think that you are over-stating the situation. If I had been "constantly attacking ExCAA and others" there would have been some reasonable disciplinary action by mods.
In the spirit of candor and disclosure, however, please pull up one of my supposed attacks on ExCAA so that I may be held accountable by the community here. Put up or shut up (so to speak). Or anyone else who can pull up a single damning attack I have previously allegedly issued on ExCAA.
Fact: The only dog-ass unmitigated bullsh*t out-of-line attack to occur between ExCAA and moi was ushered by him and he ultimately could not put up, as I have politely challenged you to do now.
My problem with you in this situation is not that you have directed "out of line" or even unwarranted attacks against JG. My problem is that you constantly degrade the content of otherwise informational or constructive threads by bringing up the same issues over and over, even if they are not relevant to the topic being discussed.
For example, a thread pops up about JG or his book. It has nothing to do with your personal squabble with him, yet you show up and post a link to your "reputation debate" thread. I'm not going to play the evidence game—you know that a single page search will bring up more than one instance of this.I can only imagine that this is possibly a by-product of your own claim to being some sort of "SEO expert," and you're unable to break out of the habit of trying to create backlinks to articles or threads with your name in them. But by constantly jumping into conversations with comments that you've made over and over again—and that are not even relevant to the topic of discussion in a particular thread—you make the discussions less useful for everyone.
To claim that I'm a JG sycophant may seem like a pointed insult to you, but I trust that most won't take it seriously, as my defense of JG has always been from what I feel to be an objective viewpoint. For example, see my comments below on my take on the Chinese dealer situation and your contention that the pros are burning out all the games.
I have nothing to gain from being a JG ass-kisser, despite your accusation, as I don't know the man personally and quite likely will never meet him. Although I certainly wouldn't have gotten as far as I have in the AP world (which is not really that far, mind you) without information gleaned from him, I don't feel that I owe him anything, nor do I think he would care if I felt I did.
I obtained a copy of Exhibit CAA simply by luck—I ordered it at the right time, before sales began to be restricted. If I had ordered it six months later, I'd be in the same boat as the OP. It's easily one of the—if not the—most valuable purchase I've ever made. If that makes me a JG sycophant, then so be it.
zengrifter said:
AND your suggestions about "unscrupulous rookies" being at fault for killing games are ludicrous, to say the least.
Ludicrous, to say the least? I'm not opposed to a little hyperbole, so I'll let that stand, but here's my opinion on why my suggestions are
reasonable, at worst:
You may know of a few games that have been burned out by pros, and there is no dispute there. But while a particular game may be burned out here and there with good reason (game is too obvious/dangerous) or bad reason (screwing over a competitor's team), there are many, many more games that are being burned out in a subtler manner everywhere.
Example: I played in a venue with a reasonable game for a reasonable amount of time. The game is kind of out of the way and not extremely valuable, so it's a huge waste of time for pros. One day, a player came in from out of town and proceeded to break multiple rules that many of the pros (not just JG) warn about. This guy played for about a week before he went him, and that shift has been hotter ever since. Maybe it's not fair to believe that he's solely responsible for changing the environment at that particular venue, but from my observation of him at the tables and of a few events that transpired in the weeks following, I'm certain that he either got nailed or tipped the pit off about the play.
Many rookies burn out games without intentionally being sloppy, or stupid. That is why I noted before that I wished JG would publish online some of the less-sensitive stuff from the Book that deals with casino comportment, among other things. A lot of rookies just don't understand some of the things that skilled players know are costly. JG's "Five Deadly Venoms" thread is a great example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not these players' fault—they just haven't been trained properly and are getting into something that they don't fully understand. I've made many mistakes with this type of play (and continue to, undoubtedly), but I continually try to improve and refine my play so as to play unmolested and keep everyone happy at the end of the day.
But some "unscrupulous" rookies and even "new-school" players that have been at it for a year or so and don't necessarily have respect for the community at large make no attempt to preserve games or stay under the radar. A lot of these guys make a ton of posts about HC plays on message boards, bragging about getting backed off at 3CP, discussing strategy, blatantly pointing out things that would better be left out of the discussion (things that a casino can watch for that are almost a perfect indicator of HC play at certain games). They aggressively play games where are not conducive to aggression (games where dealers reveal mucked cards,
and pay attention to them), they hit hard 17, they make a big scene with civilians in the lucky seat, etc. Maybe these guys have good intentions too, but the fact is that this behavior is quite likely to burn out an entire
shift or even
venue, and I really do believe that you'll find this much more commonly than pros burning out games by winning a ton of money on them (although there's no doubt that happens).