MHS wrote:
In that case, he should stop trying to present himself as an advocate
for players. And the alternative is . . . . presenting himself as a
????? for the casinos.
I produce and sell information to players, casinos, manufacturers, and governmental agencies. I have never presented myself as an advocate for players. I do believe that players who take my classes and read the materials I produce will have better gambling results than players who don't. If you believe otherwise, don't read my stuff.
Some players have an "us against the casinos" view of the world and find it easier to understand if I'm always on one side or the other. That's not the way I operate. My view is that players and casinos both have to survive for this to work. If casinos take all the money from players, then casinos will go broke because there is nobody to support them. Likewise, if casinos lose too much money to players (as a whole), the casinos go broke and then the players will have nobody to win from.
There's a happy medium. Casinos can survive while offering decent games --- that the best players can exploit. I do what I can to support this "view of the world." If somebody else doesn't like it, so be it.
Would it bother you if a doctor or dentist had both players and casino executives for patients? Or a grocer sold food to both groups? I don't see it as a lot different than that to sell information to both groups.
Bob
__._,_.__I_
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (5) |
