Can We Have Every Pick In One Thread, With A Record?

[Jeff Jones]

Of course not, but that's the only way the site is going to differentiate itself from other sites.

Right now, it's remains just another towel-slapping, anonymous Frat boy clusterfuck for self-proclaimed Sharps. Somebody has to produce some winning results with their picks, at least occasionally.

It's just not there, yet.

You have two threads dedicated to picks. "We Want The Max." and "No Arguments: A Forum For Picks." One is dedicated to three respected Sharp gamblers, and one is dedicated to anybody. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Nobody is winning.

Custer had a bad start and is now gunshy about posting.
The Chaperone has been pretty much furniture since the start of his room.
PerpCzech is losing now, but he is posting picks away. But he can't be switching back and forth between pick threads to obfuscate his result. I can't follow his result. What is it? It's as clouded as BostonRed's. I hope they're winning.

And here's the obfuscation. Too much boiler-plate Sharp nonsense orthodoxy. We've kind have heard this for how many Internet years? Every Sharp thinks they need to interject "Kelly," and then "-110" is worse than -108," and on and on.

Perp makes some picks. The Sharps circle. We receive the next four pages of posts where the Sharps turn the conversation into first semester law-school Sharps dixcussing Constitutional Law at lunchbreak.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "One good post of winners is better than four pages of festering Sharp insight."

[Jon in Oakland]

Of course not, but that's the only way the site is going to differentiate itself from other sites.

Well, we have you. That's pretty different these days.

Right now, it's remains just another towel-slapping, anonymous Frat boy clusterfuck for self-proclaimed Sharps.

Frat boy? We banned the booby avatars. This is the Algonquin Round Table compared to a few other places.

You have two threads dedicated to picks. "We Want The Max." and "No Arguments: A Forum For Picks."

Those are rooms, not threads. The Max is not picks room per se, though they are allowed. Think of it as a pros lounge.

[PerpetualCzech]

You have two threads dedicated to picks. "We Want The Max." and "No Arguments: A Forum For Picks."

You're half right. And dead, dead wrong about the other half.

[Jeff Jones]

If a moderator takes the time to break my post into three separate responses, I guess I have your attention.

[Jon in Oakland]

The apple doesn't fall far from the three.

[Jeff Jones]

The moderators are circling fast, here like everywhere else.

[Jon in Oakland]

Don't be paranoid. Many of your posts are brilliantly written. Change we can believe in was an all-timer. I'm glad you're here.

[Jeff Jones]

Jon.

I want your site to succeed. But most days I can come back 36 hours later, and nobody has posted.

I post (at least what I think is what I think) and I have you and Perp all over me in 5 minutes.

I may not be Sharp, but I'm not crazy.

[Jon in Oakland]

I'm not all over you, I'm just responding to what I think is unfounded criticism. I'm here quite a bit as you might imagine. We're not the busiest board in the world but 36 hours without a post is gross exaggeration.

[Jeff Jones]

So, I return to the original question.

Can We Have Every Pick In One Thread, With A Record?

[Jon in Oakland]

No.

The Picks Room is somewhat of a mess, not a state secret I realize. The idea was to have each poster's picks on each sport in one thread. PC and I have been too busy/lazy to enforce all the rules of the room. I had hoped that a peer review (ala SSB) situation would develop, but that has not been the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that any records posted there are inaccurate, just that I can't vouch for them. I still think the concept of the room is excellent. We just need to find a better way to make it work.

[Jeff Jones]

We have lived through Discreet Cat, John Netto, and that Professor Irwin Corey Internet Law guy.

As soon as they were challenged, they bailed so fast.

[Jeff Jones]

No.

The Picks Room is somewhat of a mess, not a state secret I realize. I had hoped that a peer review (ala SSB) situation would develop, but that has not been the case. .

I just gave you the peer review. Fix it.

[TJMAXX]

no boobies? wtf-- how can you have a 'gambling' site w/o boobie avatars and a 'smut' room?

JJ-- you still owe me lunch.

[Jeff Jones]

TJMaxx

You are on for a dollar menu at MacDonalds, I am also huge at SuperWalmart and Food For Less. I know Value.

Nobody votes for one thread of winners, because nobody here is picking any winners. It's more failed Sharp genius than I can stand.

I will praise any Sharp down to the first time mark who has a winning record.

It's just not happening.

Perp, Custer, and Chaperone. Can any of you document winning anything?

[JuiceHead]

Of course not, but that's the only way the site is going to differentiate itself from other sites.

Right now, it's remains just another towel-slapping, anonymous Frat boy clusterfuck for self-proclaimed Sharps. Somebody has to produce some winning results with their picks, at least occasionally.

It's just not there, yet.

You have two threads dedicated to picks. "We Want The Max." and "No Arguments: A Forum For Picks." One is dedicated to three respected Sharp gamblers, and one is dedicated to anybody. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Nobody is winning.

JJ, Not quite accurate, Drizzle and Sundown have been posting some solid winners; I wish they would post more often.

[custer]

I'm not paid enough to document anything. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone. My reasons for posting are helpful discussion and entertainment when I'm bored, not in that order. My reason for being on this site is I'm friends with the owners.

I think the multiple forums thing, especially the existence of 'The Hub' is one of the reasons this site looks so dead. But I've voiced that opinion before and it is respectfully disagreed with by the brass. I think we have more rooms than regular posters. That's tough action. I fear RTP is one slow baseball season away from needing an Obama bailout.

[Ace]

i do not have enough thime to go to the end of someones thread to see if he posted by chance what game i might be interested in --- or even why do i care what line pinnacle has a game posted ( especially since i can't bet at pinny) at if i made the bet at greek---does not make sense to me.

[Jeff Jones]

I'm not paid enough to document anything. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone.


Well, that's just not true, since you attached your name to the site. Had the first set of picks won, you would not have written this. You're one of the most respected Sharps in Las Vegas. Don't let one set of bad picks discourage you from posting plays.

[custer]

Well, that's just not true, since you attached your name to the site. Had the first set of picks won, you would not have written this. You're one of the most respected Sharps in Las Vegas. Don't let one set of bad picks discourage you from posting plays.

My name is not attached to the site. I work as an unpaid moderator for one of 8 or 12 rooms on the site, I've lost count. I would have written this in response to documentation regardless of short term result, as I never meant to document anything in the 1st place. The reason I have not posted further picks was that (get ready to laugh) I was never completely down on anything after round 1, and if one person bets what I want to bet it negatively affects my price, theoretically.

For the most part, posting plays doesn't benefit me. So, as you have perhaps noticed, I usually only post plays when they contradictory to someone else's plays, and I do that to start trouble for entertainment purposes. We work very very hard on our stuff, and generally I don't want to give it or sell it to anyone for any reason.

[Jeff Jones]

Man, Sharps get defensive, even anonymously.

I realize that anonymous Sharp egos flow on the Internet, and losing is a sore, subjective blow to their image.

But it is gambling. You are allowed to lose. But you can't turn the first time you lose here into "I'm-not-getting-paid-here-but I'm-really up-elsewhere-and -this doesn't-benefit -me!"

Once again, if the first set of picks had won, this would have been an entirely different conversation.

But the Sharp as gambling Diva does get predictable.

[WarDekar]

Just because the conversation would be different doesn't mean his opinion on the matter would change.

[hudson15]

I think the multiple forums thing, especially the existence of 'The Hub' is one of the reasons this site looks so dead. But I've voiced that opinion before and it is respectfully disagreed with by the brass. I think we have more rooms than regular posters.

The Hub and We want the Max should be merged.

[Jon in Oakland]

The Hub and We want the Max should be merged.

Disagree.

This is the forum where I debate JJ and promote stuff. The Max is for the sharps.

[custer]

Disagree.

This is the forum where I debate JJ and promote stuff. The Max is for the sharps.

That's nice in theory, but if you have a main forum at the top of the page called 'The Hub', that's where some people are gonna post, sharp or not, whether you like it or not. This creates somewhat of a split forum where not only do people have to check 2 rooms instead of 1, but which will look much less busy to many newcomers, whose decision on if and where to post is likely at least partly based on how many replies and reads they expect.

[ahearnb]

I think the multiple forums thing, especially the existence of 'The Hub' is one of the reasons this site looks so dead. But I've voiced that opinion before and it is respectfully disagreed with by the brass. I think we have more rooms than regular posters. That's tough action. I fear RTP is one slow baseball season away from needing an Obama bailout.

The Hub and We want the Max should be merged.

Me 3.

[Wrecktangle]

OK, once upon a time I posted my picks in forums for free, and at the time folks knew who I was. It didn't do me any good except for a few "you da man" posts...and when I tailed off, the unwashed masses threw rocks at me...kind of like what JJ is doing.

I haunt the forums a bit now mostly for fun, and I do pick up some information, but when the NFL season cranks up, I doubt it'll be worth my time.

I doubt it'll ever really take off in a public forum.

But, I sorta hope I'm wrong 'cause it's fun to track what "you're" doing...if it really is.

[custer]

Fezzik just posted the exact same thread in both forums. If that doesn't show you the problem with this setup, Jon, I don't know what will.

[WarDekar]

Oh come on, Fez obviously knows better, he did it on purpose you should be able to see that.

[custer]

Oh come on, Fez obviously knows better, he did it on purpose you should be able to see that.

This is awfully condescending considering you're missing the point.

[Jon in Oakland]

Fezzik just posted the exact same thread in both forums. If that doesn't show you the problem with this setup, Jon, I don't know what will.

Fezz (and he's not the only one) will sometimes post the same thing at two or more forums. Should we consolidate into one big board? OK, don't answer that.