anon: wong and patteson in the same sentence

[anon]

don,

i know you are completely aware of my feelings re the bj21 situation and you and the other great teachers of this game.

for everyone else, i have long been appalled by the disrespect paid to our teachers. likewise i have been shocked by the freedom the snake oil salesmen enjoy over there.

however, imho there is a significant distinction between the two. no matter how wong chooses to run his site he has never, as far as i know, taught people to make negative expectancy bets as if they were in fact posative expectancy.

this is a crucial distinction.

until that line is crossed, and i think it never will, then wong and the other should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

[Don Schlesinger]

> however, imho there is a significant
> distinction between the two. no matter how
> wong chooses to run his site he has never,
> as far as i know, taught people to make
> negative expectancy bets as if they were in
> fact positive expectancy.

> this is a crucial distinction.

I'm sure you're correct.

> until that line is crossed, and i think it
> never will, then wong and the other should
> not be mentioned in the same sentence.

Well, your distinction is certainly valid and is noted. Mentioning Wong and Patterson in the same sentence came when I felt they both had compromised their integrity, which, I thought, had been impeccable in both instances and then became tarnished, for whatever reason.

Your point that the reasons are different is quite acceptable. But, I believe that my point -- namely that both "looked the other way," in pursuit of the almighty dollar -- is equally valid.

Don

[anon]

[Broncosauras[sic]]

I recently read a story he wrote about how he was involved in some very early bj research, a result of a chance meeting with Cantey and a subsequent collaboration on a government contract. Do you know any more details about this?

[Don Schlesinger]

> I recently read a story he wrote about how
> he was involved in some very early bj
> research, a result of a chance meeting with
> Cantey and a subsequent collaboration on a
> government contract. Do you know any more
> details about this?

No, I don't. Jerry does go way back, and he did some fine things during his "honest" period.

Don