Golf threads restored

Fast work. It's obvious someone's feeding it out and it's likely one of the original comps that didn't get deleted. We'll go through and clean that. For now, I don't mind them hearing what I have to say. As you point out, it will be displayed out of context, but so what. Just knowing how bitter PC is to go to all this trouble is almost compensation enough.
>>Message boards are a very ugly business They do seem to bring out the ugly side in a lot of people. In face to face life, if you believe someone to be an a-hole many people just avoid them. On a message board it's not that easy. If you are the type who would usually just ignore an asswipe rather than debate them, message boards may be the wrong business to be in. You get drawn into exchanges with people you wouldn't normally give the time of day to. There is a reason people have 20,000 posts and it's not because they are trusted advisors to Dale Carnegie.
[QUOTE=tgunn;39896]Any ideas what happened to cause these deletions? IMO it was a good idea to restore the threads.[/QUOTE] bump ^^^^ Not trying to cause trouble but I do think we are entitled to an answer. As for the idiot who types "loosing" repeatedly it's me. Do I have a grudge? Nope. Did I lose (yes i got it right!) a shitload of money tailling ALF last year? Yes, 63k just on that match play day 1 fiasco. Do I think there was a coverup/record tampering as the reason for the deleted threads? Possibly Whats my goal? None at all, I just expect RESPECT & INTEGRITY from those posting picks as paid moderators. With all due respect, tgunn
Sorry for that. It was hostile in the 2+2 environment and I took everyone posting in there as an enemy. No offense. The big loss is unfortunate, but wager amounts are relative and I assume that you can afford to bet at that level. Long losing streaks are inevitable even if you're Billy Walters. Regarding tampering, it makes no sense for us to do that. The threads were up for long periods of time and for all to see. No one would forget about them, so taking them down wouldn't hide anything as this saga attests. And why would we take down just three when there have been many losing streaks in threads? You write "loosing" without realizing that it's wrong. We delete a thread the same way. Both honest mistakes that get fixed. And neither hurts anyone else when you think about it. I wrote on 2+2 that we don't (knowingly) delete losing threads and we don't. When I found out that these were down, I restored them immediately.

[QUOTE=anthony;39998]When I found out that these were down, I restored them immediately.[/QUOTE] Actually you didn't immediately restore them. You restored them after all the drama played out at 2+2. You didn't really answer tgunn's question. Who deleted the threads and why? Are we to believe that the threads were "unknowningly" deleted or "pushed?"
Um, yes, I did. Do you want to tell me something else you think you know and don't? I haven't even looked at those threads yet. If there were all losers in there, I'll investigate further.
Okay. To be honest, I never followed the golf threads so don't know when they disappeared or appeared. I assumed since this thread is titled "Golf threads restored" that you started this thread after you restored them. This thread began on 2/22 while the 2+2 thread started on 2/13 (actually the initial thread was before that but that's when Tom Cowley first posted about the issues here which eventually lead to a splintered off new thread). You responded to that thread on 2/15 so when you say that you restored the threads "immediately," I would assume that they were restored on 2/15 or 2/16 at the latest. Did you restore them on 2/15-16 and then wait a week to start this thread? Anyways, I actually think you are getting more flack for this incident than you deserve (though I do think you deserve some). That being said, I think tgunn's question is valid and you have repeatedly dodged that question (or similar questions asked by others) for a long time now. It doesn't help your case.
Too much flack? Nah. This is of world importance. You probably missed my edit when you posted this. I think it's important for me to know what was in those threads before I discuss specifics. Sorry, but LVA is due today, so it will have to wait.
I hope no one was offended by my "spelling and grammar" comment. It's just ironic that some brilliant math minds are a bit weak in their English skills. That was my point. If you read my post, it certainly doesn't single anyone out, as this would be in poor taste. Like I said before, we're not here for great writing. It might be a good time to let this thread die.
[QUOTE=truushot;39960]The circular logic of the posters was amazing. Um.. no records are kept.. but a few threads where deleted... so those records couldn't be kept... but who's keeping those records.. but I need those threads so records can be kept... People baffle me.[/QUOTE] Not so baffling. At the risk of beating a dead horse and ignoring the fact that I may be taking my life in my hands, here's my understanding of events, at least as they apply to Fezzik. Fezzik and/or AC can feel free to correct this account. 1. Last year, no tracking records were kept. Fezzik claimed 55% win rate at football for 2009. He had some reason to think he did well, considering he won the Hilton! I don't blame him for such an off-the-cuff estimate. Several posters express some skepticism. 2. Around Dec, 2009, LVA comped Dreamer to go back and compile the record, turns out Fezzik hit around 48%. 3. Fezzik feels there were errors made and says he will check the record. 4. Sometime later, Dreamer is labelled a "Fezzik hater" and all the references to Fezzik's record were deleted. Several posters protesting the deletions were "decomped" (certainly the right of LVA). So you can see the is a rather linear timeline. No official tracking records, then a backwards in time compilation, then deletion of said records. IMHO, the 2009 record issue was badly handled by LVA. This year, Fezzik posted on EOG that he wished that I would track his record. I said I would if LVA comped an account for me. The end result was a small profit, with the proviso that any one NFL season is going to be a statistically small sample of picks. Most of the time for WA side and total bets, Fezzik's bets beat the "closing line" (I plan on posting this analysis if I ever get time to get to it) There was still discussion and criticism of Fezzik here and on other forums. There were certainly some props and team totals that were limited to small wagers and not available everywhere, everyone acknowledges that. However, at a subscription $25 / month, a diligent reader/follower would have probably have made a small profit. OTOH, it is possible if a big bettor ignored the props and reg. season win total bets, he would have shown a loss. This is why I broke down the bets into many categories (also in response to a request by poster IcedTea). OK, my own unsolicited recommendation: keep a tracking record based on lines available at the time. Every reader is on his own, of course, but this will provide a baseline for readers to judge their own results. There will always be some banter about WA or not WA but as long as [B]SOME reasonable standard [/B]is used, the baseline can be easily defended.