Deuce: State of the Union

[Deuce]

Yes we will all see. It's hardly the first. Some of you have your minds made up. Who said SBR traffic was down? This past weekend set a record. Those that left I wish them well but will have zero effect on this site. As I told them. If you don't like it here click that little red x and be gone. This site and it's 2 thousand strong daily posting group are here posting away and enjoying themselves. I suggest joining in or leaving but the complaint and crying geez that could take a break.

Weekend set a record? It was Tony and jjgold fighting. Without jjgold starting thread after thread, you would be able to see tumbleweeds bouncing on by. You're not fooling anyone, website traffic sites out there say otherwise.

John I am not here to battle you or jjgold. I respect you both in different ways. You have put some great gambling tools in place, jjgold I respect because he is dedicated. Instead of attacking your posters and telling them to leave if they don't like the way the resident Mofome posts isn't the best way to handle the situation but once again, this is the way you wish to run your business.

[jjgold]

Deuce I actually do not start a ton of threads if you look down the pages, what do you want?? Deuce going to another site is not the answer, I could care less about those drunks over there but your not a drunk and do not belong there. I think your a key piece here at SBR as is Herman but going to another site and trying to prove some point is not going to work. Deuce talk to me!!!

[Enogsiwon]

Calm down Deuce..

You need to take a break, pretty soon the King will be giving you +185 winners on days Verlander is way overvalued and we'll all be friends again.. You have to remember what matters..$$$$$

fukk all these fukks..

Stop betting on dumb shit and pull yourself together, you sound like Pavy right now and that's not a good thing..

[Dunder]

If you dont like him then simply put him on ignore and do not read him. Its really quite easy.

Good post Deuce, but JJ and his cheerleaders are going nowhere. SBR_John is right, your SBR forum experience would be a lot less frustrating if you avoided Player´s Talk or had an ignore list like this:

[The Seer]

Good post Deuce, but JJ and his cheerleaders are going nowhere. SBR_John is right, your SBR forum experience would be a lot less frustrating if you avoided Player´s Talk or had an ignore list like this:

dunder

[The Seer]

Deuce, jjgold might not be a "paid" poster but he definitely has an interest most likely in ownership which was clear this weekend by trying to "protect" the site as if we didn't already know.

[BEANTOWNJIM]

I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE A SHORT TIME AND I CAN SEE A LOT OF CHANGES I WOULDNT LIKE IF I WAS IN DEUCES SHOES.WHERE IS NICKY SANTORO I HOPE HE WAS REPLACED BY FISHHEAD

ALSO SBR JOHN YOU SHOULDNT JUST SAY HEY F-CK IT IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS PLACE THEN HIT THE RED BITTON AND LEAVE.DEUCE STRIKES ME AS A GOOD POSTER AND HE HAS FEELINGS YOUR ALMOST DARING HIM TO LEAVE SBR JOHN AND HE IS RIGHT THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES GOING ON THAT DONT LOOK GOOD.

DEUCE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT LIKE I SAID I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE A SHORT TIME SO IT MEANS SHIT TO ME BUT BRINGING IN ALL THESE JERK OFFS FROM OTHER FORUMS ISNT THE ANSWER.(FISHHEAD AND PATRICK BATEMAN JUST TWO EXAMPLES

SBR JOHN YOU OWE DEUCE AN APOLOGY FOR YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIS STAE OF THE UNION IF I WAS DEUCE I WOULD TELL YOU TO SHOVE IT UP YOUR ARSE AND GO JOIN THE OTHER FORUM.YOUR NOT EVEN LISTENING TO THE POINTS HE IS BRINGING UP.

JJGOLD DOES TALK A LITTLE TO MUCH HIS VIDEOS ARE THE BEST HAVE HIM STICK TO VIDEOS AND KEEP QUITE AND LET OTHERS START TOPICS.PAID POSTERS ALL THEY DO IS MAKE NOISE

SBR JOHN IS FISHHEAD ON YOUR PAYROLL NOW THE F-CKING GUY HASNT SHUT UP SINCE HE CAME BACK HERE HE HAS PAID POSTER WRITTEN ALL OVER HIM ITS EASY TO SPOT THEY ARE THE ONES MAKING ALL THE NOISE

[BEANTOWNJIM]

SBR JOHN I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PAID POSTERS BUT IF YOUR GOING TO DO THAT PAY THE GUYS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE DONT BRING IN NAMES FROM OTHER FORUMS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DEUCE GET PAID OR SEER MAYBE EVEN A COUPLE OF OTHER GUYS BUT DONT BRING IN FISHHEAD AND PLAY IT OFF LIKE HE ISNT BEING PAID TO POST HERE PAY THE GUYS WHO HAVE STUCK AROUND OBVIOUSLY DEUCES FEELINGS HAVE BEEN HURT AND HE DOESNT LIKE SEEING WHATS HAPPENING AROUND THE FORUM.

SUPPORT THE LOCAL POSTERS WHO HAVE STUCK IT OUT DONT PAY THE F-CKING JERK OFFS THAT JUST SHOW UP FROM OTHER FORUMS.

PUT DEUCE ON THE AYROLL AND LET HIM MODERATE FOR A WHILE I AM PRETTY SURE HE CAN HANDLE IT

[SBR_John]

Weekend set a record? It was Tony and jjgold fighting. Without jjgold starting thread after thread, you would be able to see tumbleweeds bouncing on by. You're not fooling anyone, website traffic sites out there say otherwise.

John I am not here to battle you or jjgold. I respect you both in different ways. You have put some great gambling tools in place, jjgold I respect because he is dedicated. Instead of attacking your posters and telling them to leave if they don't like the way the resident Mofome posts isn't the best way to handle the situation but once again, this is the way you wish to run your business.

Duece ole buddy you are just dead wrong on this. I know you have your mind made up so its hard to have an even conversation. We are having record sign up days and record log in days and if you know anyone at any sportsboook ask them who sends the most traffic and report it here.

This is not the first time guys have bolted in forumville 'As the Day Turns'. We had guys bolt for TOW when they promised to take SBR down. More recently Mofo bolted and took all the girls and a bunch of posters with him. It was headline forumville news at the time. They even hired our top 20 posters as paid posters. Zero effect and probably even helped in the long run. If the SBR sites have the content and entertainment value the people will come. Thats always been the case. SBR needs to keep creating and not worry about a few guys who wander off.

[SBR_John]

I gave you 2 points Jim....now you are officially a paid poster.

I'm going to set a real line in the SBR sportsbook on if you will beat me at golf at the SBR bash.

I think Pick'em -110 will be the opening line. You better practice.

[ElCapitan]

Good post Deuce, but JJ and his cheerleaders are going nowhere. SBR_John is right, your SBR forum experience would be a lot less frustrating if you avoided Player´s Talk or had an ignore list like this:

With an ignore list like that this place must look like a ghost town.

[jjgold]

TOW had some backing also like 20K a month and still failed and had some high priced help. It is virtually impossible to have an effective gambling site anymore unless just non profit hobby with your friends.

[BadNina]

Hi. Girl here who didn't leave with Mo. Not that anyone noticed or cared.


I get what Deuce is trying to do here. And I applaud him for it. Just because someone is offering some constructive criticism doesn't mean they hate it here or that they are whining and crying. It is an effort to help. I actually have a couple of suggestions myself on things I have seen that have changed over the time I have been here. And I think its a shame that I don't feel comfortable in talking about them. As I have said to John in private, I think I am part of the target audience. I am new to gambling. I now have accounts at books and I make small wagers while I am attemting to learn what the heck I am doing. I also have a lot of friends who enjoy the same things I do (which is why we are friends). I encourage my friends to try things out once I have if I think they would like it. My mother's boyfriend loves to hit casinos. I had been thinking of inviting them here so he would have a different avenue for his entertainment. But at this time, I don't feel comfortable inviting anyone here and that is a shame.


pee s......if you think you might be interested in my observation and suggestion, John or whomever, just say so. But you will need to let me speak bluntly.

[Deuce]

Hi. Girl here who didn't leave with Mo. Not that anyone noticed or cared.


I get what Deuce is trying to do here. And I applaud him for it. Just because someone is offering some constructive criticism doesn't mean they hate it here or that they are whining and crying. It is an effort to help. I actually have a couple of suggestions myself on things I have seen that have changed over the time I have been here. And I think its a shame that I don't feel comfortable in talking about them. As I have said to John in private, I think I am part of the target audience. I am new to gambling. I now have accounts at books and I make small wagers while I am attemting to learn what the heck I am doing. I also have a lot of friends who enjoy the same things I do (which is why we are friends). I encourage my friends to try things out once I have if I think they would like it. My mother's boyfriend loves to hit casinos. I had been thinking of inviting them here so he would have a different avenue for his entertainment. But at this time, I don't feel comfortable inviting anyone here and that is a shame.


pee s......if you think you might be interested in my observation and suggestion, John or whomever, just say so. But you will need to let me speak bluntly.

Nina, I respect someone that can voice their opinion openly. I suggest taking your suggestions and bury them because it will only result in three responses.

1. Play dumb.
2. They will reassure you that traffic is better than ever and if you don't like it to click the red X.
3. If you don't like it, put the certain folks on ignore.

Nothing will be dealt with, no suggestions unless it provides more traffic will be taken seriously. It is a numbers game. Quantity not quality.

[jjgold]

Deuce take a break and comeback strong. I think the pressure is getting to you here. It is easy to have a meltdown because I had a few.

Take your girl out and I will give you 20 points for popcorn

[bobbyfk]

[whatsgood5]

Very nice post Deuce

[flyingillini]

Good write up Deuce! Now as Jesus Christ once stated in the Good Book, " Noah, lets gamble"

[Deuce]

I want to thank all if my fellow posters. We have done great things here. Recognition is our next step.

[JohnAnthony]

I want to thank all if my fellow posters. We have done great things here. Recognition is our next step.

If that's referring to posters as a team/whole, I agree.

[podunk]

[1st and Ten]

Good post Deuce, but JJ and his cheerleaders are going nowhere. SBR_John is right, your SBR forum experience would be a lot less frustrating if you avoided Player´s Talk or had an ignore list like this:

oh snap! Thunder Dunder

[JohnAnthony]

It's a shame Dunder decided to block me. I still respect him nonetheless.

[robmpink]

I somewhat agree with you but this is what I think....

There was similar attention devoted an earlier (and more interesting, in my view) article in the popular science magazine Discover last fall. The basic issue at play in multiverse theory is what is often called “fine tuning” or the Anthropic Principle: the assertion that if any of a very large number of constants in fundamental physical laws were even slightly different, then intelligent life would be impossible in our universe. One philosophical solution to this is that “God made the universe”. Another is the idea of the multiverse: more or less that are there are many universes beyond the one apparent to us, and that we happen to see this universe because it’s the one we’re in, and it’s the one we’re in because it’s the one that happens to have the values for these constants that allow intelligent life to evolve. It’s “monkeys on typewriters” on a (super-)cosmic scale. This sounds like a scientific theory; but if we take “universe” to equal “all physical reality that is observable in principle by human beings”, then I’ll argue that it is not scientific at all, but pure metaphysics.

One starting point is the observation that this basic concept is not a new idea. In 1934, Sir Karl Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery, generally considered to be one of the two most significant works on the philosophy of science in the past hundred years. Here his is in Part 67 of that book:

[S]ince probability estimates are not falsifiable; it must always be possible in this way to ‘explain’ by probability estimates, any regularity we please. Take, for example, the law of gravity. We may contrive hypothetical probability estimates to ‘explain’ this law in the following way. We select events of some kind to serve as elementary or atomic events; for instance the movement of a small particle. We then assume that these events show a chance-like distribution. Finally we calculate the probability that all the particles within a certain finite spatial region, and during a certain finite period of time – a certain ‘cosmic period’ – will with a specified accuracy move, accidentally, in the way required by the law of gravity. The probability calculated will, of course, be very small; negligibly small, in fact, but still not equal to zero. Thus we can raise the question of how long an n-segment of the sequence would have to be, or in other words, how long a duration must be assumed for the whole process, in order that we may expect with a probability close to 1 (or deviating from 1 by not more than an arbitrarily small value) the occurrence of one such cosmic period in which, as the result of an accumulation of accidents, our observations will agree with the law of gravity. For any value as close to 1 as we chose, we obtain a definite, though extremely large, finite number. We can then say: if we assume that the segment of this sequence has this very great length – or in other words that the ‘world’ lasts long enough – then our assumption of randomness entitles us to expect that the occurrence of a cosmic period in which the laws of gravity will seem to hold good, though ‘in reality’ nothing ever occurs but random scattering. This type of ‘explanation’ by means of the assumption of randomness is applicable to any regularity we choose. In fact we can in this way ‘explain’ our whole world, with all its observed regularities, as a phase in a random chaos – as an accumulation of purely accidental coincidences. [Italics in original]

As he says in the final sentence of this paragraph, we could theoretically explain the whole ‘world’ (i.e., all that can be observed, even in principle; the universe) this way. Modern cosmologists have to speak of ‘alternative unobservable universes’, because it is so widely accepted that our observable universe was created recently enough (about 14 billion years ago) that we don’t have nearly enough time for the simpler (and more obviously non-scientific) statement that we are just in a long enough random sequence in an almost infinitely long-lived universe. Multiverse theory is simply a modern incarnation of the same argument that Popper described 70 years ago.

So what? This doesn’t mean it’s not true. Lots of things that seem really weird to us have been shown to be scientifically true.

Here’s Popper’s next paragraph:

It seems to me that speculations of this kind are ‘metaphysical’, and that they are without any significance for science. And it seems equally clear that this fact is connected with their nonfalsifiability – with the fact that we can always and in all circumstances indulge in them.

In a much later edition, published decades later, Popper begins a wry footnote to these paragraphs with the following lines:

When writing this, I thought that speculations of the kind described would be easily recognized as useless, just because of their unlimited applicability. But they seem to more tempting than I imagined.

It sure has. But even if the idea of non-observable universes is, well, non-observable, there is of course the argument that we can theorize that some phenomenon X should be apparent in our observable universe if there really is a multiverse, and that if X is apparent then this can be used to show that the multiverse exists. Here is a section from the Discover article:

When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.

“What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’?”

We can’t explain it any other way, so my hypothesized metaphysical agent, which by definition escapes human observation, must be the cause. After all, this is only potential cause that has not been disproven.

But, of course, this is precisely the form of the argument for Intelligent Design (ID). Maybe we should call it a “multiverse of the gaps” argument.

Now the counter argument is that we actually do have good scientific explanations for many of the phenomena that were claimed to be unexplainable without an intelligent designer. But scientific knowledge is never absolute, so there are always gaps, and therefore always space for such an argument. The problem with both ID and multiverse theory is the same: neither is true and neither is false in a scientific sense; they are metaphysical frameworks with the scientific task of inspiring testable hypotheses, but are not themselves scientific theories capable of testing through scientific means.

It’s tempting to see ID and multiverse theory as mirror images – one looking desperately to prove scientifically that humans are special, and the other desperately seeking to avoid this conclusion. This is almost, but not quite, appropriate in my view. The proper question to ask about both multiverse theory and ID is whether they are fruitful. Ultimately, either each framework will help scientists develop physical theories in the form of predictive rules that can be tested through observation, or it will not. It’s very hard to see how ID can do this, but I guess that anything’s possible. Multiverse theory is more likely to do so, if only because it is a point of view that embeds a metaphysic that is far more congenial to so many more smart scientists.

But to look to science to answer a metaphysical questions like “Did God create us?” or “Are there completely unobservable aspects of reality?” is a category error of the first order.

[robmpink]

I somewhat agree with you but this is what I think....

There was similar attention devoted an earlier (and more interesting, in my view) article in the popular science magazine Discover last fall. The basic issue at play in multiverse theory is what is often called “fine tuning” or the Anthropic Principle: the assertion that if any of a very large number of constants in fundamental physical laws were even slightly different, then intelligent life would be impossible in our universe. One philosophical solution to this is that “God made the universe”. Another is the idea of the multiverse: more or less that are there are many universes beyond the one apparent to us, and that we happen to see this universe because it’s the one we’re in, and it’s the one we’re in because it’s the one that happens to have the values for these constants that allow intelligent life to evolve. It’s “monkeys on typewriters” on a (super-)cosmic scale. This sounds like a scientific theory; but if we take “universe” to equal “all physical reality that is observable in principle by human beings”, then I’ll argue that it is not scientific at all, but pure metaphysics.

One starting point is the observation that this basic concept is not a new idea. In 1934, Sir Karl Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery, generally considered to be one of the two most significant works on the philosophy of science in the past hundred years. Here his is in Part 67 of that book:

[S]ince probability estimates are not falsifiable; it must always be possible in this way to ‘explain’ by probability estimates, any regularity we please. Take, for example, the law of gravity. We may contrive hypothetical probability estimates to ‘explain’ this law in the following way. We select events of some kind to serve as elementary or atomic events; for instance the movement of a small particle. We then assume that these events show a chance-like distribution. Finally we calculate the probability that all the particles within a certain finite spatial region, and during a certain finite period of time – a certain ‘cosmic period’ – will with a specified accuracy move, accidentally, in the way required by the law of gravity. The probability calculated will, of course, be very small; negligibly small, in fact, but still not equal to zero. Thus we can raise the question of how long an n-segment of the sequence would have to be, or in other words, how long a duration must be assumed for the whole process, in order that we may expect with a probability close to 1 (or deviating from 1 by not more than an arbitrarily small value) the occurrence of one such cosmic period in which, as the result of an accumulation of accidents, our observations will agree with the law of gravity. For any value as close to 1 as we chose, we obtain a definite, though extremely large, finite number. We can then say: if we assume that the segment of this sequence has this very great length – or in other words that the ‘world’ lasts long enough – then our assumption of randomness entitles us to expect that the occurrence of a cosmic period in which the laws of gravity will seem to hold good, though ‘in reality’ nothing ever occurs but random scattering. This type of ‘explanation’ by means of the assumption of randomness is applicable to any regularity we choose. In fact we can in this way ‘explain’ our whole world, with all its observed regularities, as a phase in a random chaos – as an accumulation of purely accidental coincidences. [Italics in original]

As he says in the final sentence of this paragraph, we could theoretically explain the whole ‘world’ (i.e., all that can be observed, even in principle; the universe) this way. Modern cosmologists have to speak of ‘alternative unobservable universes’, because it is so widely accepted that our observable universe was created recently enough (about 14 billion years ago) that we don’t have nearly enough time for the simpler (and more obviously non-scientific) statement that we are just in a long enough random sequence in an almost infinitely long-lived universe. Multiverse theory is simply a modern incarnation of the same argument that Popper described 70 years ago.

So what? This doesn’t mean it’s not true. Lots of things that seem really weird to us have been shown to be scientifically true.

Here’s Popper’s next paragraph:

It seems to me that speculations of this kind are ‘metaphysical’, and that they are without any significance for science. And it seems equally clear that this fact is connected with their nonfalsifiability – with the fact that we can always and in all circumstances indulge in them.

In a much later edition, published decades later, Popper begins a wry footnote to these paragraphs with the following lines:

When writing this, I thought that speculations of the kind described would be easily recognized as useless, just because of their unlimited applicability. But they seem to more tempting than I imagined.

It sure has. But even if the idea of non-observable universes is, well, non-observable, there is of course the argument that we can theorize that some phenomenon X should be apparent in our observable universe if there really is a multiverse, and that if X is apparent then this can be used to show that the multiverse exists. Here is a section from the Discover article:

When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.

“What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’?”

We can’t explain it any other way, so my hypothesized metaphysical agent, which by definition escapes human observation, must be the cause. After all, this is only potential cause that has not been disproven.

But, of course, this is precisely the form of the argument for Intelligent Design (ID). Maybe we should call it a “multiverse of the gaps” argument.

Now the counter argument is that we actually do have good scientific explanations for many of the phenomena that were claimed to be unexplainable without an intelligent designer. But scientific knowledge is never absolute, so there are always gaps, and therefore always space for such an argument. The problem with both ID and multiverse theory is the same: neither is true and neither is false in a scientific sense; they are metaphysical frameworks with the scientific task of inspiring testable hypotheses, but are not themselves scientific theories capable of testing through scientific means.

It’s tempting to see ID and multiverse theory as mirror images – one looking desperately to prove scientifically that humans are special, and the other desperately seeking to avoid this conclusion. This is almost, but not quite, appropriate in my view. The proper question to ask about both multiverse theory and ID is whether they are fruitful. Ultimately, either each framework will help scientists develop physical theories in the form of predictive rules that can be tested through observation, or it will not. It’s very hard to see how ID can do this, but I guess that anything’s possible. Multiverse theory is more likely to do so, if only because it is a point of view that embeds a metaphysic that is far more congenial to so many more smart scientists.

But to look to science to answer a metaphysical questions like “Did God create us?” or “Are there completely unobservable aspects of reality?” is a category error of the first order.

It took me 11 minutes to do!

[Cougar Bait]

I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE A SHORT TIME

Joined August 2005

[jjgold]

Deuce I am worried about you, maybe things are going on in your private life and you are bringing your anger to the forum. Deuce maybe you should see a shrink and iron out your issues.

Deuce your not like us right now

[Cougar Bait]

Uh oh, I feel a Shine box statement coming soon...

[jjgold]

Cougat I expect you back posting exclusively here

[Cougar Bait]

Cougat I expect you back posting exclusively here

PM me

[PerfecTrader]

That's just laughable. He was the 3rd guy to sign up for the forum. Makes 1,000s of videos. Posts from 5am-11pm every day. Of course he is compensated, or he is a bigger loser than we realize.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhahhahahaha that's ****in hysterical bro, thanks much for the laugh

[PerfecTrader]

Deuce your not like us right now

JJ I literally pissed my pants just now If we ever meet the beers and OG Kush are on me.

[Jimmy0607]

Very well said

[SBR_John]

robmpink - very funny stuff. Took me a minute...good thing I was sober

[whatsgood5]

I see what you did there Rob