General Forum

Just asking

Posted By: Don Schlesinger
Date: 24 Aug 01, 9:07 pm

In Response To: Suggestion: List those 391 picks (Stanford Wong)

"That would go a long way toward resolving the suspicions that arise due to Dan describing his 1996 season in his 2001 book, instead of describing any of the four seasons that were played after 1996 but before the book was published."

These suspicions that arise -- did you have them only after you asked Dan to join SSB and he declined, preferring, instead, to stick with RGE and the person who published his book -- or would you still be having those suspicions today, even after Dan would have joined up with SSB and been one of your featured handicappers?

Just asking.

Dan's book was written after the 1996 season. He wanted to publish it in 1997. It never happened. The writeup of the 80 games was so extensive and detailed that he never undertook a similar writeup of any of the subsequent seasons, but, of course, the mention of the record was essential for a book published this year. So, too, was some supplementary material that Dan provided to make some of the sections more up to date.

"We trust your honesty. And we trust Dan Gordon's honesty. But we all can see a few loopholes that would allow honest people to honestly report a misleading W-L record, when a list of bets Dan made early in the week is submitted to you late in the week and you made no effort
to find out what lines were available after receiving the information from Dan."

I was not a "client" of Dan's. I simply was a repository for his weekly bets, which he furnished to me. When Dan has clients, as you will see at RGE, he furnishes the games and the lines that are expected to be available for them, in an extremely timely fashion. If he thinks a line will move during the week, and you need to get down early, he will release the game as soon as humanly possible, so you get on the number that he knows will be available Sunday evening.

If, on the other hand, he feels the line will move in his favor later in the week (he is eerily accurate on these calls), he tells you what to hold out for. The instructions are always crystal clear and completely unambiguous.

The man is a virtuoso, and I find it hilarious how many people who know virtually nothing whatsoever about him are quick to dismiss him as a quack, or a man with a dubious record, etc., etc. One wonders if there's anything in the whole world a person could do to display his competence, given that he didn't shout his picks from the 50-yard line of Giant Stadium every Sunday.

And, the funniest part of all is that, for 20 years, Dan has laughed all the way to the bank, and now, only I feel obliged to defend his record. He'd rather spend his time getting ready for the upcoming season. Of course, to me, his record this season will be immaterial. If he picks 56-60%, it will be ho-hum, business as usual. The naysayers will say anyone can have a lucky year like that. If he picks 50-53%, most will crucify him, but what will it all matter?

Anyone out there ever play a full year of BJ and have your ass handed to you?

Just asking.

Don

Messages In This Thread

a question -- Arthur -- 21 Aug 01, 5:11 pm

answers -- Stanford Wong -- 21 Aug 01, 7:05 pm

Virtually all attainable -- Don Schlesinger -- 21 Aug 01, 7:36 pm

More data is required -- John May -- 22 Aug 01, 11:03 am

More data will come -- Stanford Wong -- 22 Aug 01, 1:39 pm

Highly doubtful -- Don Schlesinger -- 22 Aug 01, 7:02 pm

Don, you are one lovable smartass! (nt) -- Compador -- 22 Aug 01, 8:01 pm

Chunk Bet -- Fezzik -- 22 Aug 01, 10:40 pm

Wong +500 looks resonable -- Math Boy -- 23 Aug 01, 8:22 am

I'm impressed -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 9:33 am

not that great an estimate -- Math Boy -- 23 Aug 01, 3:47 pm

Spoilsport -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 4:09 pm

DonS is running the wrong way! -- fezzik's chunk bet -- 23 Aug 01, 11:15 pm

Eye of the beholder -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 8:36 am

you're not as smart as i thought you were -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 10:06 am

Strange thought processes -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 5:13 pm

you believe because you know him...but what about us? -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 5:28 pm

Honest answers -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 6:36 pm

Four years -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 5:30 pm

219/391 -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 6:40 pm

a little math question -- docriver -- 24 Aug 01, 6:43 pm

Math question -- Colin Caster -- 24 Aug 01, 8:06 pm

Suggestion: List those 391 picks -- Stanford Wong -- 24 Aug 01, 8:34 pm

Just asking -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 9:07 pm

Don, isn't this two-faced? -- Fezzik -- 25 Aug 01, 12:20 am

No new picks with old prices, please -- Stanford Wong -- 25 Aug 01, 7:14 am

Always boils down to the same thing -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 8:54 am

Classic DonS Deflection Post -- Fezzik -- 24 Aug 01, 8:56 pm

Too serious -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 8:45 am

I think you touched some nerves Don -- DowntownMan -- 25 Aug 01, 1:26 pm

I don't expect an answer . . . -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Aug 01, 5:56 pm

Good post! -- Fezzik -- 25 Aug 01, 9:01 pm

Question re: " correction to the Gordon sample". -- samo666 -- 23 Aug 01, 2:43 am

You need to look at the total number of touts tested -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 3:07 am

Asinine analysis -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 9:36 am

Er...why? -- John May -- 23 Aug 01, 1:13 pm

Guess you can't read -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 4:34 pm

Corrections & Honest Touts -- Bob Fisher -- 23 Aug 01, 5:29 pm

Quite misguided analysis -- Don Schlesinger -- 23 Aug 01, 8:53 pm

Baccarat vs touting -- John May -- 24 Aug 01, 12:24 pm

I thank God every day -- Don Schlesinger -- 24 Aug 01, 5:28 pm

What makes Stanford Wong an authority on football wagering? -- Colin Caster -- 21 Aug 01, 11:10 pm

Wong has established -- John May -- 22 Aug 01, 4:39 am

General Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press