Betchain usa friendly 728x90

Author Topic: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...  (Read 30810 times)

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« on: August 01, 2014, 02:32:21 PM »
On another forum, a poster is claiming that Martin was a PHD mathematician.
However, after having read the book, I fi
d it very hard to believe.    The book lacks clear explanations and has very little real math in it.  PHD mathematicians tend to have a maticulous eye for detail, something that's obviously missing from the book.  Furthermore, there's no explanation as to what the system has to do with chaos theory.

Currently, on the internet, there are several different books being peddled by people that claim to be mathematicians.
It seems as though authors of roulette systems always claim to have a degree in math, thus instantly announcing the whole thing to be a con .
Perhaps a degree in logical thinking would be more beneficial to themselves. 


On the surface, even layman can immediately dismiss the system and it's wild claims as being nothing more than another up as you lose system based on the gambler's fallacy.  Reviews on the Wizardofvegas forum say the same.


In the end, the results of the system will be as follows:  (Total sum of all bets made) x (house edge) = Long term loser.

-Houston
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 02:48:29 PM by kav »


 
The following users thanked this post: lone wolf

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2014, 02:50:25 PM »
Hi Real,
Very recently I have had some complains from XXVV about a previous post you made mentioning him, which he found to be offensive.
Although I am against censorship and political correctness I deleted that post, because it referred to other forums and people who do not participate here to "defend" themselves.
I value very much your post to this forum, because your (repeated) nay-saying can produce interesting dialogue. Please refrain from  making characterizations that can be interpreted as offensive. That would keep the discussion productive, save me time from email exchanges with offended persons and would be better for the community in general.

Thank you everyone.
 

Jake007

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 246 times
  • "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2014, 03:56:58 PM »
On another forum, a poster is claiming that Martin was a PHD mathematician.
However, after having read the book, I fi
d it very hard to believe.    The book lacks clear explanations and has very little real math in it.  PHD mathematicians tend to have a maticulous eye for detail, something that's obviously missing from the book.  Furthermore, there's no explanation as to what the system has to do with chaos theory.

Currently, on the internet, there are several different books being peddled by people that claim to be mathematicians.
It seems as though authors of roulette systems always claim to have a degree in math, thus instantly announcing the whole thing to be a con .
Perhaps a degree in logical thinking would be more beneficial to themselves. 


On the surface, even layman can immediately dismiss the system and it's wild claims as being nothing more than another up as you lose system based on the gambler's fallacy.  Reviews on the Wizardofvegas forum say the same.


In the end, the results of the system will be as follows:  (Total sum of all bets made) x (house edge) = Long term loser.

-Houston

Real, do all systems and strategies somehow come from gamblers fallacy? If not, could you (or anyone) please give an example of a system based on GF and one not based on GF? Thanks.

I'm still relatively a newbie with roulette. Ive played a lot of systems I have found online after getting hooked this past December in Las Vegas where I did quite well (luckily) using Martingale technique. I looked like a God to a few friends! After some roulette research I quickly warned them not to rely on Martingale. Im still a newbie to roulette (I do not like any other casino games) although Ive played thousands upon thousands of online spins now. Thanks for any info.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2014, 06:55:36 PM »
Quote
Real, do all systems and strategies somehow come from gamblers fallacy? If not, could you (or anyone) please give an example of a system based on GF and one not based on GF? Thanks.

Strategies/Systems that attempt to beat the game tend to have a firm foundation in gambler's fallacy.

Strategies that attempt to exploit inefficiencies in the wheel or wheel/dealer procedure are something different. 

Good job on moving away from the Martingale.

-Real
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 06:58:27 PM by Real »
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2014, 07:23:10 PM »
This is a very interesting dialogue regarding gamblers fallacy. Well worth reading.

I have no formed opinion about M. Blakey and his system, however there are two red flags:
1. He was too actively promoting his book, as if he needed the sales, which is strange from someone who can beat the wheel as easily as he claims.
2. His system seems confusing. Ancient Greeks said that clarity is evidence of wisdom.
However I repeat, these are just red flags. I have not formed a final opinion about him or his system. It seems worth studying.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 07:40:46 PM by kav »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2014, 08:10:35 PM »

His fake press reports are a pretty big red flag as well. 
 
There's nothing about the system that would enable it to work in the long run.   I don't know of a single mathematician, especially a PHD mathematician, that would tout an up as you lose progression, and bet's that are "due to hit" because they haven't hit in a long time as a way to beat roulette in the long run.   Just because a group of number hasn't hit in the long run does not make them more likely to hit in the future.  This is basic probability 101.  Something that a mathematician should know.  When someone attempted to promote the book on the wizardofvegas forum the members had some good laughs.
 
  If a player was playing Martin's system on even a weak biased wheel, then the player could easily find themselves betting on the negatively biased numbers, and gradually increasing their stakes on such numbers.  Such a system is probably one of the more efficient ways there is to actually lose at a rate that could possibly exceed the house edge!  In other words, it's not just a bad system, it's a really bad system!

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is or has been making a living by playing such an absurd up as you lose system.

-Real
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 08:19:58 PM by Real »
 

palladio

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2014, 09:28:26 PM »

His fake press reports are a pretty big red flag as well. 
 
There's nothing about the system that would enable it to work in the long run.   I don't know of a single mathematician, especially a PHD mathematician, that would tout an up as you lose progression, and bet's that are "due to hit" because they haven't hit in a long time as a way to beat roulette in the long run.   Just because a group of number hasn't hit in the long run does not make them more likely to hit in the future.  This is basic probability 101.  Something that a mathematician should know.  When someone attempted to promote the book on the wizardofvegas forum the members had some good laughs.
 
  If a player was playing Martin's system on even a weak biased wheel, then the player could easily find themselves betting on the negatively biased numbers, and gradually increasing their stakes on such numbers.  Such a system is probably one of the more efficient ways there is to actually lose at a rate that could possibly exceed the house edge!  In other words, it's not just a bad system, it's a really bad system!
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is or has been making a living by playing such an absurd up as you lose system.

-Real

Real, you seem to have an ongoing problem with the work of Dr Martin Blakey who by the way passed away in Melbourne three weeks ago after a remarkable 43 years career as a full time professional roulette player.

Here are a few facts to restore some balance to counter your viewpoint. The life work of Dr Blakey has made a strong positive impact on many roulette players in that he was able to sustain his family and meet all his life responsibilities through income generated by net profit through roulette for over 40 years- you would agree this is a mighty achievement. Crown Casino in Melbourne enjoyed the patronage of Dr Blakey in its Private Members Room on a nearly daily basis, five or six days per week whenever he was not travelling in Australia or worldwide. He played in Casinos in London, in Europe, but mainly his adopted home city of Melbourne.

This weekend the Crown Casino, Melbourne will be hosting a Memorial Function to celebrate the life work of Dr Blakey. This is indeed a very rare achievement.

You refer to 'fake press reports' - would you care to elaborate. All reports observed by myself and colleagues are actual, as also the television reportage and interview.

The book that Dr Blakey produced over 25 years ago and which discussed a winning strategy, ran three editions and was self published without an independent Editor. In its most recent edition there are references to several sets of 16 numbers being able to be identified and there is discussion that in observing a sleeper set, then in due course that set of 16 numbers can be attacked, more often than not, with success. The bet strategy is ingenious in that 16 targets is a key tipping point in bet efficiency and particularly so when four corner bets are utilsed as an efficient means to attack.

Through constant refining and development of this particular strategy Dr Blakey was able to achieve net gains by limiting his bank exposure, by timing his sessions within most effective constraints, and learning to accept appropriate profits when offered, and accepting loss when necessary, so as to mitigate damage. At other times gains could be accentuated through cool headed judgment.

Fellow players at the table have noted to me that Dr Blakey always was disciplined, patient, and smart.

I have seen analysis of his weekly play schedules and he kept meticulous records of every session played over 40 years. In recent years he played with an assistant at the table to keep the pressures simpler, and in fact as he described it to me, the game became 'more a social event'. He was in control at all times.

Your superficial critique of Dr Blakey's methodology illustrates how little you understand of valid techniques in live play where sleeping groups can become valid targets, once the trigger criteria for commencement of an attack are known. Other roulette experts have noted sleeper dozens for example as a very valid focus for successful play in short cycles.

Regarding his book Dr Blakey concedes that there were passages unclear and there were errors that a good Editor would have corrected. He did make efforts in recent times to correct those errors and his website roulettemastered.com  does have access to some detail and technique not earlier published.

But also Dr Blakey was a professional and certainly kept some techniques private. He delighted to demonstrate that winning at roulette was achievable and his own life and weekly experience demonstrated that.

Dr Blakey was a gentleman, always of good cheer, confident and non reactionary to criticism, as he knew and lived his abilities in a manner which was energetic, positive, and fun. He was very proud of the achievements of his family also, and particularly his son Scott who earned a first class science degree which has led to an outstanding career and all the Blakey children were home schooled.

Dr Blakey had a wonderful life and is a great example for professional roulette.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 10:21:46 PM by kav »
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2014, 10:28:32 PM »
Since I mentioned a couple red flags, I should also point out a green flag, which is that Martin Blakey, was... a real person and not an anonymous online personality. Furthermore, we was too old to expect to make a living by selling fake systems.
So I guess his intentions were probably honest. As far as the effectiveness of his system, that's an other story.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2014, 11:25:18 PM »

Quote
Real, you seem to have an ongoing problem with the work of Dr Martin Blakey who by the way passed away in Melbourne three weeks ago after a remarkable 43 years career as a full time professional roulette player.-Pallidio

The books wild claim that Martin made a living by playing roulette within the Crown Casino is, at best, misleading the reader and borders on fraud.  I believe that he possibly frequented the casino, but was undoubtedly a very large long term net loser.  For starters, the casinos do not welcome and continue to comp lifetime winners.  I know this from experience, as do others.  Furthermore, his system is based on the Gambler's Fallacy and it doesn't stand a chance in hell of working.  This is easily proven mathematically.  Real mathematicians, such as Dr. Edward Thorp and others, will tell you that systems, such as Martin's, are indeed a very foolish venture.
If I knew what his average bet was, and on average how many spins he played per year, then I could tell you approximately how much he likely pissed away over his lifetime gambling in the casino. 
Quote
where sleeping groups can become valid targets, once the trigger criteria for commencement of an attack are known. Other roulette experts have noted sleeper dozens for example as a very valid focus for successful play in short cycles.
  - Above is simply more of the Gambler's Fallacy.

The Gambler's Fallacy: "The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random proces, this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gamblingwhere such mistakes are common among players." -FACT



If you want to prove that his book and system were anything other than a fraud or scheme to make money off of unsuspecting readers, then provide some mathematical prove that the system can work, rather than unsubstantiated testimonials, and bogus press releases.  Don't attempt to dazzle me with bogus terms, words used out of context and BS.  Simply show us the math.

-Real
"It seems as though authors of roulette systems always claim to have a degree in math, thus instantly announcing the whole thing to be a con .
Perhaps a degree in logical thinking would be more beneficial to themselves." -From a wise poster on another forum. 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 02:12:38 AM by Real »
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 401 times
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2014, 01:35:03 AM »
Quote

Real, do all systems and strategies somehow come from gamblers fallacy? If not, could you (or anyone) please give an example of a system based on GF and one not based on GF? Thanks.

I'm still relatively a newbie with roulette. Ive played a lot of systems I have found online after getting hooked this past December in Las Vegas where I did quite well (luckily) using Martingale technique. I looked like a God to a few friends! After some roulette research I quickly warned them not to rely on Martingale. Im still a newbie to roulette (I do not like any other casino games) although Ive played thousands upon thousands of online spins now. Thanks for any info.
Jake
Gambler's fallacy ( who came up with this doctrine ? We don't know and y should we embrace it and use it as a standard of comparison anyway.) If we accept it for a moment, that such fallacy exists, it refers to bets that are due because of imbalances in the identity of numbers. Bets do not always have to do with what is due to show up. Bets can be random, bets can follow a temporary trend, or anything that has nothing to do with frequency or rarity. If this fallacy were true, then there would be no equilibrium  in a very large sample. Some numbers would take thousands of spins and never show up. But we know that NEVER HAPPENS. NEVER EVER. And everything balances out like a rolex watch. So in small samples (that's when most players play), there is a tendency  for things to try to balance themselves in a smaller way. If it happens in large samples it has to happen in smaller samples.

 Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. Why would I take advice from a person who has dedicated no more than 9 hours to roulette?
He/she is a quitter in my book and I have no use for quitters!! No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way.....STILL WAITING


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2014, 01:38:03 AM »
Quote
Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. Why would I take advice from a person who has dedicated no more than 9 hours to roulette?
He/she is a quitter in my book and I have no use for quitters!! No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way.....STILL WAITING

I suspect that what you perhaps mean is that many people unknowingly fall prey to the gambler's fallacy because they lack experience and an understanding of basic probability?

  Try proofreading your post, and then posting again.  What you've written above doesn't really make any sense.

Cheers,

-Real
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 01:45:06 AM by Real »
 

palladio

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2014, 02:48:49 AM »

Real, your remarks are disrespectful to others and claim that I have provided false information, when indeed they are facts that I have verified through trusted third parties, and through my own direct experience. Your own record with Casinos and thus the treatment you have received may well reflect your attitude toward them, and thus limit your experience negatively.

Dr Blakey never viewed the Casinos as the enemy and in fact was always graciously treated by them because he was never greedy.  They considered it was a fair contest for sometimes he lost, and sometimes he won, but the winnings consistently, week by week overcome any loss.

In one of the last correspondences between myself and Dr Blakey (  a few weeks ago)  he scheduled his previous ten day activity which included seven sessions playing at $5 and $10 units usually with a bank of around 250 units. The smallest win was $290, and the largest win was $1250. The net gain for the seven sessions was in excess of $5000 AUD. This was in the Private Members Room of Crown Casino. Such amounts went under the radar for any Casino objection, and his presence together with a personal assistant at the table was always well received.

You will note that one of the introductions to his book was written by the General Manager of the Casino in Launceston, Tasmania where he used to visit during long weekends away from Melbourne. In recent months he also visited the Lasseters Casino at Ayers Rock in the heart of Australia, as well as travel to London and Europe, where he also played at casinos.

You cannot be serious suggesting that Dr Blakey continually lost over 40 years when he had no other source of income? Your knowledge of the positive side of professional play seems very limited and you fall into the trap of evaluating others through your own partial vision and limited knowledge.

A wiser head might leave the door open that there must more to discover but you seem to exhibit the characteristics of a know-it-all and cynic, and thus limit yourself to express in very ungracious and inappropriate terms towards a master of the game, now past.

As often happens after death,  Dr Blakey's work may receive more international recognition now that he is not available for comment. By the way, he always handled criticism with good humour and grace because he knew his abilities and was not insecure.

Regarding your interpretation of Gambler's Fallacy, you would do well to read the writings of researchers such as Gizmotron and Sqzbox on another Forum so as to broaden your understanding.

Further when giving advice to other posters regarding proofreading you yourself need to take more care with your spelling and grammar.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 02:52:30 AM by palladio »
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Thanked: 401 times
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2014, 02:56:33 AM »
Quote
Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. Why would I take advice from a person who has dedicated no more than 9 hours to roulette?
He/she is a quitter in my book and I have no use for quitters!! No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way.....STILL WAITING

I suspect that what you perhaps mean is that many people unknowingly fall prey to the gambler's fallacy because they lack experience and an understanding of basic probability?

  Try proofreading your post, and then posting again.  What you've written above doesn't really make any sense.

Cheers,

-Real

According to your postings, your expertise is taking advantage of wheel imperfections (highly unlikely in today's age) from one hand, and maybe dealer signature in the other. The second has much more value as I have used such  system in the past. It's not the specific dealer that makes that happen. It's a coincidental combination dealer/wheel for a specific point in time, and it's short lived. If someone can take advantage of it during that short period and stops after making a profit, then fine. But it's not for everybody. It requires extreme concentration and advanced observational skills.
It seems that you only accept these methods to win, and dismiss any other method as hopeless because of probabilities and the gambler's fallacy. Therefore I doubt if you have any experience in those methods. Maybe you never even tried. You made your decision early that math is against you and for the casino. For those who have tried and studied long sequences of spins, will tell you that after a long time study things become a lot more clearer.
Having a PHD in math or be a math expert has nothing to do with winning. Otherwise if all the math experts hit the floors there would be no roulettes in the casinos.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2014, 05:41:05 AM »
Quote
Regarding your interpretation of Gambler's Fallacy, you would do well to read the writings of researchers such as Gizmotron and Sqzbox on another Forum so as to broaden your understanding.

@Pallidio,

Sorry, but I work in the real world of commonsense, and math, not the delusional. 

Quote
You cannot be serious suggesting that Dr Blakey continually lost over 40 years when he had no other source of income? Your knowledge of the positive side of professional play seems very limited and you fall into the trap of evaluating others through your own partial vision and limited knowledge.

Based on the math, I am indeed saying that I believe that he was likely a long term loser at the game. 
There's no proof that Martin's system was anything more than a foolish up as you lose progression firmly rooted in the Gambler's Fallacy.  No math.  No science.  Just stories, and wild nonsensical claims that can not be substantiated.

Please don't attempt to dazzle me with BS.  I can see right through it, as can others.   

Again, where's the math that demonstrates that his system could provide him with an edge over the casino???

@ Palestis,

I don't know what it is that you're rambling on about in your post above, but then again, I doubt that you do either.

-Real.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 06:05:50 AM by Real »
 

palladio

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Martin Blakey, PHD Mathematician? I don't think so...
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2014, 07:33:19 AM »
Quote
Regarding your interpretation of Gambler's Fallacy, you would do well to read the writings of researchers such as Gizmotron and Sqzbox on another Forum so as to broaden your understanding.

@Pallidio,

Sorry, but I work in the real world of commonsense, and math, not the delusional.

Palladio is my name.

So, 'Real', this is becoming quite funny, ie absurd, in the nonsense responses you offer. So you are telling us that Gizmotron's work and that of Sqzbox with regard to Gambler's Fallacy is delusional. In what sense then, and show us how that is the case, as you appear to not value their work, and be the authority in this matter. That sounds rather 'delusional' do you not think?

Quote
You cannot be serious suggesting that Dr Blakey continually lost over 40 years when he had no other source of income? Your knowledge of the positive side of professional play seems very limited and you fall into the trap of evaluating others through your own partial vision and limited knowledge.

Based on the math,I am indeed saying that I believe that he was likely a long term loser at the game.
There's no proof that Martin's system was anything more than a foolish up as you lose progression firmly rooted in the Gambler's Fallacy.  No math.  No science. Just stories, and wild nonsensical claims that can not be substantiated.


Please don't attempt to dazzle me with BS.  I can see right through it, as can others.   

Again, where's the math that demonstrates that his system could provide him with an edge over the casino???

The proof is in the total life work of Dr Blakey and the winning strategy in roulette that enabled a net gain to support a comfortable and harmonious lifestyle over a more than a 40 year period. 'The math' you request, the 'proof' is within the total package of the work of Dr Blakey, and yes it will require some effort for anyone to access as MB was a private professional,  but a roulette player who shared many insights into his success. You seem to demand the 'answer' as of right as if it were that simple, and because effort is required to access such answers, you hurl abuse like a petulant child expecting only simple 'math'. It is so much more than that.

In this subject there are not simple answers. The success was built on daily painstaking detail, discipline, patience and focus into special short cycle opportunities that more often than not provided modest gain given astute and experienced timing. There are many many important ideas and concepts in the last few sentences. Please do not once again insult us all with your over simplified response which is like a fixed stuck recording giving the same old message.

Well, 'Real', there is some unintended irony it appears in your choice of name here on this Forum. We all want to see what is real, ie what is truth, do we not?  So why do you promote slander, lies and attempt to discredit those who have a lifetime of experience and respect from many peers? As you so lamely express, 'at best.... it boarders (sic) on fraud'....'misleading the reader'  that Dr Blakey made his living playing roulette at the Crown Casino.'

You now state that it is likely Dr Blakey was a long term loser at the game.  Would you like me to put you in touch with the General Manager of the Crown Casino, Melbourne, on this Memorial Day for Dr Blakey, and advise that 'Real' from Roulette30 Forum has made several public statements on this Forum expressing the view that Dr Blakey 'was likely a long term loser at the game and 'boarders (sic) on fraud' with claims made in his book. That will likely go down very well in Melbourne tonight.

Enough of this nonsense 'Real'.


It is time to stop attempting to discredit an honourable man.  You are the one who looks so foolish with your slander and ill -timed abuse of Dr Blakey.

Apart from my correspondence with Crown Casino on this matter, there will be no further correspondence with you.

@ Palestis,

I don't know what it is that you're rambling on about in your post above, but then again, I doubt that you do either.

-Real.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 08:13:23 AM by palladio »