[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

General Forum

What makes Stanford Wong an authority on football wagering?

Posted By: Colin Caster
Date: 21 Aug 01, 11:10 pm

In Response To: a question (Arthur)

The question puzzles me, Arthur. What *wouldn't* make him an authority? The fact that he wasn't himself a pro player? That he hadn't had years of taking out full page ads in Don Best touting 70% winners? That he's known for being really good at *other* things? That he had a losing season last year?

I'm not being sarcastic -- I really want to know. It seems self-evident to me that the chief ingredients in the recipe for authority in an area such as sports wagering include: intelligence, skepticism, hard work, and analytical and quantitative skills. It also helps not to have an enormous ego, so that one is better able to correct his mistakes and to listen to other smart people.

And Stanford surrounds himself with smart people, not professional sycophants. He submits his ideas in writing before some of the harshest critics and best thinkers you will find anywhere on the web. On the rare occasions he's wrong, the poor guy gets pummelled in public by this rag-tag posse of pros, semipros, and amateurs.

There are many, many football betting sites on the web, some of them populated with people whose entire lives have centered around sports wagering. From 99% of them, I have learned *absolutely nothing* of value. Worse, many are filled with self-delusions, poor reasoning, and outright lies, all of which obviously inhibit the quest for understanding. You know who I have learned important things from?
Stanford's gang of skeptics, most of them part-timers: engineers, retirees, accountants, actuaries, grad students, statisticians, attorneys, writers, and assholes.

Arthur, stick around a while and you'll see. You'll see even if you don't buy anything and just hang around the "Bleachers" section for a couple of weeks. Given the skepticism you've already demonstrated, I predict you'll soon become an important part of the site.

Best wishes,

Colin

Password:

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

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If you'd like to have the option of deleting your post later,
please provide a password (CASE SENSITIVE!):

Password:

If you'd like e-mail notification of responses, please check this box:

 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

General Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press