Jack Zito / Covers thread

[ChiefZilla]

(04-18-2012 11:23 AM)spanishredeye Wrote:  I'd rather chief talk about his morning bowel movements then read your posts at this point.

Well then, if that's the case...





And Zito ... wow. What's crazy about this is literally everyone has said that Covers was way in the wrong by not doing their due diligence when making the hire. More in the wrong than you were. Based on what you wrote in the SBR thread, it seems they didn't care because they thought they could make some money off of you.

I don't really know what your angle is by telling people what to do around here, but whatever. I'm not gonna flip out on you like the SBR guys. You asked for intelligent and "immforative" conversation. I'll "reframe" from posting anything other than that, but only because you asked so nicely.

But please, start contributing something.

[JSpauny]

(04-18-2012 11:52 AM)JackZito Wrote:  I guess in short - I did wrong because my bosses informed to do wrong

You set up the cliche so I gotta go with it.

So if your bosses informed you to jump off a bridge, I'm guessing you'd do it based on your logic here.

[JackZito]

(04-18-2012 12:03 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 11:50 AM)JackZito Wrote:  As mentioned, I felt uncomfortable doing the things Covers was making me do. That's why I told BTB what was going on he told some people, Covers caught wind and removed my account.

Let the record show that you only revealed your involvement with Covers after I approached you and told you what I knew.

True, but Covers knew everything you did.

[JackZito]

(04-18-2012 12:07 PM)JSpauny Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 11:52 AM)JackZito Wrote:  I guess in short - I did wrong because my bosses informed to do wrong

You set up the cliche so I gotta go with it.

So if your bosses informed you to jump off a bridge, I'm guessing you'd do it based on your logic here.

Again, these are VERY EXTREME examples compared to our situation. My bosses told me to tout records and hype plays because it was good for sales.

[JackZito]

(04-18-2012 12:04 PM)ChiefZilla Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 11:23 AM)spanishredeye Wrote:  I'd rather chief talk about his morning bowel movements then read your posts at this point.

Well then, if that's the case...





And Zito ... wow. What's crazy about this is literally everyone has said that Covers was way in the wrong by not doing their due diligence when making the hire. More in the wrong than you were. Based on what you wrote in the SBR thread, it seems they didn't care because they thought they could make some money off of you.

I don't really know what your angle is by telling people what to do around here, but whatever. I'm not gonna flip out on you like the SBR guys. You asked for intelligent and "immforative" conversation. I'll "reframe" from posting anything other than that, but only because you asked so nicely.

But please, start contributing something.

I will contribute to other threads.

This thread however is dealing with this particular topic.

[Beyond the Bets]

(04-18-2012 12:09 PM)JackZito Wrote:  Also for record, its important to note you were also fired from his writing position at a business affiliated with Covers because of your involvement.

Well, thanks Jack.

Full disclosure: I did some freelance writing for Sports Direct (SDI), which owns and operates a wire service and is affiliated with Covers. Once I told SDI that I planned to pursue this story, I was told that I was "no longer needed." In other words, fired.

I fully expected to be done with SDI if I published a story and am okay with the end outcome, though I disagree with the overall handling of it. I've always said that a conflict of interest—real or perceived—would never prevent me from writing a story that I felt served the public interest. In this case, I felt a moral obligation to pursue the story because I didn't want to see people get scammed.

Many forum members have already been briefed on the situation. Again, it isn't about me and never has been. I've made amends with the only person I care about at that company, and the rest is history.

If you have questions about the situation, feel free to e-mail or private message me and I'd be glad to discuss the issue.

But for the purposes of this thread, I'd rather stay on topic.

EDIT: I see that Jack has since edited his original message. He wasn't told to do that. I have no problem with that information being disclosed and planned to share it at a different time.

[mount187]

(04-18-2012 12:00 PM)Skating Tripods Wrote:  However, as a customer buying Zito's picks, you are forced to trust that Covers did their background work. There is no documentation of Zito's record anywhere. You're buying on blind faith that Covers, the supposed leading website in the industry, has done their due diligence and at least monitored the guy's picks.

Two things on this:

1) We do this with products all the time. I blindly purchase and consume soft drinks under the assumption that the people doing the checks and balances on soft drinks aren't letting me get poisoned. If they fail to do their job correctly, then I'm pretty well screwed, but that's a risk that I'm willing to take. Just because the likelihood approaches 0% that I'm going to die from drinking a Pepsi doesn't mean that it can't happen.

In the same way, people trust Covers to do their research ahead of time. If they don't, you're pretty well screwed, but you know that going into it. Which leads me to my next point.

2) Why would you blindly take Covers' word for it that the guys they're running out there are who they say they are? Being the leader in an industry of shady people just increases the probability that you're not as shady as most in my eyes. Especially when you consider, as you mentioned, there's no one to govern what they're doing. Guys like Stuckey could be 35 year old high-school dropouts that work out of their mom's basements for all I know. Hell, we EXPECT handicappers not to use their real names; think about that and tell me how it makes sense to trust someone that you assume is using a fake identity. Covers or not, that's just bad logic. I've been burned by it before, and I can step back and look at it and go, "Yeah, that was a dumb idea from the get-go."

I guess my point in all of this is that Covers didn't do anything different than any other company does. Most companies don't do in-depth background checks; the last company I worked for didn't even verify that people we hired actually had degrees from the place listed on their resume. It sounds insane, but it happens.

I'm not super passionate about this, so feel free to dispute what I'm saying or just ignore it; both are legitimate responses. And again, I'm not trying to justify what Covers did, I'm just trying to point out that while they're at fault, clearly, they're not the most awful organization on the planet for making a mistake like this.

[DOP]

I've thought about a scenario that Zit would feel could accruately sum of our feelings. What if you had a degree in Medicine and you were looking for any job once you graduated because the job is tough. Pfizer comes to you as says "look, you've got personality.. we need someone to sell pills door-to-door.. but we are not ready to release our newest drug because its still in testing.. so in the meantime, we are going to have you sell a placebo to the customers in the meantime at the same price"

logically, you are not causing any real harm by selling a placebo BUT you are selling something fake to make money off people that dont know any better.. why wouldnt a normal person trust a Pfizer rep?

Companies ask people to do illegal stuff all the time. The problem is that you agreed to it and that you only came clean to the public after someone took one of your pills to the lab and realized it was a placebo.

You should feel some moral obligation to not sell placebos to people thinking they are getting something better... that's all. Now if you could just knowledge that you messed up too and you are ready to move on then the forum here will put you to the test to see if you actually win like your covers.com profile said.

[JackZito]

I did wrong, let's move the 'F' on.

Who you guys got tonight?

As far as NBA playoffs go (the next time I will bet) I'm really focusing on Memphis and Boston as two teams to play at home. Like last year, the Grizzlies should get tremendous value in the playoffs.

I think Lakers and/or Spurs will get bounced first round. It will be interesting to see what their series prices are, as fading them could be a solid value play.

[ChiefZilla]

After what Covers has done in the past (see: betED), I don't know why anyone would trust them. And I don't know how wise it is to compare them to a respectable organization.

[ScottKimberly]

Jack Zito,

I am a completely inexperienced sports bettor. I've never actually won money on any plays (except one $20 ticket in Vegas last March--- hey-ohhh), and I just started posting on here a few weeks back.

With that in mind, I formally challenge you to a 10-day betting competition. Any bets, any sport. Bets must risk one unit on underdogs and win one unit on favorites. We can set a max bets per day with no minimum. Loser donates $20 to the winner's charity of choice.

To be honest, I just need something to distract me from law school exams, which start next week. Also, this is an opportunity for you to build some rapport on here and win some money for your favorite charity.

What say you? Can I, a lowly amateur, slay you, an experienced sports bettor? To your advantage, I will most likely end up with negative units.

King's to you.

[JackZito]

(04-18-2012 01:14 PM)ScottKimberly Wrote:  Jack Zito,

I am a completely inexperienced sports bettor. I've never actually won money on any plays (except one $20 ticket in Vegas last March--- hey-ohhh), and I just started posting on here a few weeks back.

With that in mind, I formally challenge you to a 10-day betting competition. Any bets, any sport. Bets must risk one unit on underdogs and win one unit on favorites. We can set a max bets per day with no minimum. Loser donates $20 to the winner's charity of choice.

To be honest, I just need something to distract me from law school exams, which start next week. Also, this is an opportunity for you to build some rapport on here and win some money for your favorite charity.

What say you? Can I, a lowly amateur, slay you, an experienced sports bettor? To your advantage, I will most likely end up with negative units.

King's to you.

Yes I will start the thread and you reply with your picks in there.

[Beyond the Bets]

Stay on topic, please.

Start a different thread for a challenge.

[ScottKimberly]

(04-18-2012 01:19 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  Stay on topic, please.

Start a different thread for a challenge.

Sorry, I intended to open a thread if he accepted. Didn't want to continue that conversation on here--- just initiate it.

[JackZito]

(04-18-2012 01:20 PM)ScottKimberly Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 01:19 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  Stay on topic, please.

Start a different thread for a challenge.

Sorry, I intended to open a thread if he accepted. Didn't want to continue that conversation on here--- just initiate it.

Hey Scott - I opened a thread over at the tout section. Post your picks in there. Also post W-L record and units (all 1 unit)...

[spanishredeye]

(04-18-2012 01:04 PM)ChiefZilla Wrote:  After what Covers has done in the past (see: betED), I don't know why anyone would trust them. And I don't know how wise it is to compare them to a respectable organization.

I don't know about trusting their experts, but I trust their contest payouts.

[Skating Tripods]

(04-18-2012 12:41 PM)mount187 Wrote:  Two things on this:

1) We do this with products all the time. I blindly purchase and consume soft drinks under the assumption that the people doing the checks and balances on soft drinks aren't letting me get poisoned. If they fail to do their job correctly, then I'm pretty well screwed, but that's a risk that I'm willing to take. Just because the likelihood approaches 0% that I'm going to die from drinking a Pepsi doesn't mean that it can't happen.

In the same way, people trust Covers to do their research ahead of time. If they don't, you're pretty well screwed, but you know that going into it. Which leads me to my next point.

But, again, you're talking about a regulated industry in your example. The FDA, the soft drink company themselves, and various other channels. What we have here with Zito/Covers is a unique situation because there is just one party overseeing things. Sure, there are grassroots watchdog organizations, but there's nobody to regulate the industry.

That leaves the people highly vulnerable. And look, I'm not going to defend the people. I think people who purchase picks are complete morons, especially those that do it on a regular basis.

Clearly, your view differs from mine and that's fine.

Quote:2) Why would you blindly take Covers' word for it that the guys they're running out there are who they say they are? Being the leader in an industry of shady people just increases the probability that you're not as shady as most in my eyes. Especially when you consider, as you mentioned, there's no one to govern what they're doing. Guys like Stuckey could be 35 year old high-school dropouts that work out of their mom's basements for all I know. Hell, we EXPECT handicappers not to use their real names; think about that and tell me how it makes sense to trust someone that you assume is using a fake identity. Covers or not, that's just bad logic. I've been burned by it before, and I can step back and look at it and go, "Yeah, that was a dumb idea from the get-go."

Because the people who buy picks don't understand a word you just said. If they did, they wouldn't be buying picks. Fact of the matter is that you have to assume everyone is stupid and dumb things down for them.

Perhaps this is me being sympathetic towards idiots, but it's unfair to take advantage of people who are ill-informed. That's what Covers did, and the irony is that it happened because they were ill-informed on Jack Zito and his fraudulent claims. Again, not defending the people, more of a sympathetic stance.

Quote:I guess my point in all of this is that Covers didn't do anything different than any other company does. Most companies don't do in-depth background checks; the last company I worked for didn't even verify that people we hired actually had degrees from the place listed on their resume. It sounds insane, but it happens.

No, maybe they didn't. And hey, maybe in order to get a decent job, I need to crank up the bullshit meter on my resume. It's a world full of disingenuous people and some of the biggest scumbags are the ones who are in the positions to pull the biggest strings. I get that. It's really difficult to make something of yourself in the world if you're a straight-shooter because you're a threat to someone who will fuck anybody and everybody over at the drop of a hat.

However, like I said, this is part of a bigger problem that Covers will never address. Is it immoral to let a sucker keep his money? (to use a Rounders reference)

Your hyperbole about me insinuating that they're the worst organization in the world is exactly that. Frankly, the only reason I have a dog in this race is because what Covers is doing is a part of why handicapping is viewed so negatively. Hell, I belong to Bovada, a book that will shade lines on customers because their tracking services are so advanced that they can do that without recourse.

You're not going to find accountability because you don't have to. Covers, and other sites, have nobody to answer to but themselves. It's why nobody wants to take on the monster known as online gambling. Once you give someone an inch, pretty soon, they'll take a mile. Look at how Calvin Ayre laughed off his indictment. He doesn't care. They'll never find him.

I don't expect anybody to share my opinions or even support them. That's what opinions are there for. All I'm saying is that this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg and I'll support BTB to melt it down.

[mount187]

(04-18-2012 02:04 PM)Skating Tripods Wrote:  No, maybe they didn't. And hey, maybe in order to get a decent job, I need to crank up the bullshit meter on my resume. It's a world full of disingenuous people and some of the biggest scumbags are the ones who are in the positions to pull the biggest strings. I get that. It's really difficult to make something of yourself in the world if you're a straight-shooter because you're a threat to someone who will fuck anybody and everybody over at the drop of a hat.

This was my main point. I'm not excusing the behavior, I just think it's more of a societal problem then a problem with Covers. Walmart treats their employees like garbage, and probably hates puppies and sunshine, but guess what, they have the lowest prices and the most stores. I'll continue to shop at Walmart, because I'm a desensitized idiot. If we continue to be desensitized about the places we shop (groceries, car dealerships, banks, etc.) then the people running those places will continue to have their way with us.

If you want to fight the good fight, I'll fight with you, I just don't want to act like Covers is the only business that's willing to shaft their customers to make a buck.

[Skating Tripods]

(04-18-2012 02:13 PM)mount187 Wrote:  This was my main point. I'm not excusing the behavior, I just think it's more of a societal problem then a problem with Covers. Walmart treats their employees like garbage, and probably hates puppies and sunshine, but guess what, they have the lowest prices and the most stores. I'll continue to shop at Walmart, because I'm a desensitized idiot. If we continue to be desensitized about the places we shop (groceries, car dealerships, banks, etc.) then the people running those places will continue to have their way with us.

I shop at Target. Even with the knowledge that it may, one day, help the Minnesota Twins afford a free agent that the Indians could be in on.

That's how much I hate Wal-Mart, their clientele, and their horrible customer service.

Quote:If you want to fight the good fight, I'll fight with you, I just don't want to act like Covers is the only business that's willing to shaft their customers to make a buck.

By no means am I saying that Covers is alone. What I'm saying is that Covers is the most recognizable name in handicapping. Let's say GM is the most recognizable name in car sales and production. If people started getting shitty cars that fell apart after 25,000 miles, word would spread like wildfire from the media, blogs, and god knows what else, and car sales would sharply decrease.

With Covers, unless someone goes on an incredibly bad run, people keep paying for 50% winners when we all know that that's a serious loss over time, paying for picks and not breaking even on vig. They can sweep it under the rug and move on to the next handicapper.

Look, people know when goods are priced poorly. If I go down to Target and see laundry detergent selling for $20 a bottle, I'm not buying any. If I go to McDonalds and they want $1.39 for a double cheeseburger when I can get a McDouble for $1, I know I'm not paying 39 cents for an extra slice of mass-produced cheese.

The service that Covers provides, people just don't get it. To already being taking advantage of people and then exacerbate it by hiring some schlub with a trumped up resume without doing any background work just looks bad on them. And they'll just reel people in to buying another capper's weekly picks by prettying up the wording in that day's pick.

That's what's wrong about the tout industry. You get more accountability from a 4-year-old girl who breaks a vase with her 6-year-old brother standing right next to her.

[JackZito]

Guys, the only editing done to the resume was the removal of my real name and the insertion of Jack Zito.