I never felt Frank was condescending, just blunt.
I never got the feeling he was being 'mean', just stating
his opinion about the situation.
There are more than one ways to be 'right' about things,
and frankly, his one 'offensive' email engendered a lot
of very interesting responses posing the other/oppisite
way of looking at things.
Which Frank replied to very nicely, without even
being asked to, by the way.
From: Sai Sai <gofastnismo@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:46 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: In response to your emails
I was about to post but saw what Dunbar had written and he hit it perfectly. Its not your volume of posts but the somewhat condescending tone of some of your posts. Like I had stated earlier most of the players here play well below 100% machines. Do me a favor Frank and take a look at the photos that are archived and you'll see what I'm talking about. I enjoy reading all posts, but some of the non pros might take offense to your claims of "that play isn't good enough or worth my time."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar_dra" <h_dunbar@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
> >
> > I was trying to avoid superfluous posts for awhile, but I've been getting an influx of supportive emails from my vpFREE friends asking me to stand up for myself and chastising my detractors. I have to nip this in the butt before my in-box fills up.
> >
> > First: Thanks to all my fans for your support. Here it might be misguided.
> >
> > Second: Thanks to all my non-fans for your opinions. I believe you have right on your side.
> >
> > Here's my reply and I hope this puts an end to it.
> >
> > In support of my detractors: When you are right you are right. I thought I was posting a bit much. Bob thought I was posting a bit much. The only people that didn't "seem" to think I was posting too much was vpFREE. Every time I would post something, I would get a barrage of private emails praising my posts, or asking for even more information. Those of you that didn't like them, were as silent as the grave. This generated a informational bias, which always leads to bad decisions.
> >
> > Now look at this from my POV:
> > 1. I post something
> > 2. I get a ton of positive emails, thanks and requests for more
> > 3. I never hear the opposing side because everyone else is silent
> > 4. I come to the false conclusion I should post more
> >
> > I thought I was giving people what they were asking for and wanted. Nothing more nothing less. I'm a gamma dog, and I like it that way.
> >
> > To my supporters, try to see this from my detractors POV. They see me posting all the time. They don't see all the private emails you are sending me, and they naturally think the worst. It's a very understandable conclusion given their incomplete information.
> >
> > THE RESOLUTION: From now on I will try to keep my volume of posts down to a more reasonable level and focus on more important gambling issues...and I'll leave the daily stuff to others.
> >
> > I have to post about the radio-show anyway, that should be more than enough of my silly irreverent dialogue for one week.
> >
> > If anyone has a question just for me, send it just to me.
> >
> > I also reserve the right to use vpFREE to ask questions myself. My myopic career as a progressive pro has left huge gapping holes in my knowledge set that need plugging.
> >
> > Summed up, I promise not to post more than Mickey:) He's your alpha dog and he's a better all around pro than I am.
> >
> > Most sincerely,
> >
> > ~FK
> >
> > P.S. Now if you'd like to respond to this, email me so I don't have to post more about how I'm posting less. Irony is ironic enough as it is.
> >
>
> First of all, that was a very nice conciliatory post. I'm replying to it, because I think you may have misunderstood the reason for some of the "non-fans" unhappiness.
>
> I don't think the volume of posts was the issue, but rather the tone of some of your posts. This site is as much a social network as advantage play forum. You have criticized posts that did not have what you perceived as mathematical rigor, and you have done it in a way that comes across as belittling the poster. The two examples that struck me were the recent post by Bandstand about his losing streak and CoachVee's Derby picks post.
>
> Bandstand posted about his frustration with a losing streak, and wondered how unlikely his string of losses was. Your post had the tone that it was ridiculous to even ask such a question if one was playing with a longterm edge. I think each of us has a point where we get frustrated with a losing spell. I'm afraid I wouldn't believe you if you told me you were completely immune to that feeling of frustration. Your breaking point might be much longer than mine or other posters here, but after say 2 years of constant losing, I'm confident that you, too, would run some calcs on the liklihood of losing so consistently. Bandstand asked his question without making any broader assumptions, and a simple answer was the best response, IMO. A reminder of the importance of thinking longterm would also have been appropriate, but that could have been done without denigrating the question he asked.
>
> Regarding CoachVee's Derby post, I have no idea whether CoachVee caps with an edge. But more importantly, he never claimed to have positive EV with his picks. However, I'm pretty confident he has more knowledge about horseracing than the average vpFREE member who might want to make a 'fun' Derby bet. Your 'where's the math?' post and its followups sounded sarcastic and condescending.
>
> If Bandstand or CoachVee's posts had contained an overblown claim of any sort, it would have been totally appropriate to bring out the math armies. But the posts contained no such claims.
>
> I for one would NOT like to see you post less. Just more thoughtfully! You're a knowledgeable AP and I'm glad you're participating here.
>
> These are just my opinions, and I haven't disussed them with anyone else.
>
> --Dunbar
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
