100 % is 100Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin Micunt
99.9 leaves the possibility of failure or delays
As far as people getting annoyed at me they can go shove a stick up their asses, all I am doing is passing on things I hear.
Until Stars gives an official announcement nothing is set in stone
I'm not saying China did anything wrong with reporting his info, but I'll give my take on the way this info was thrown out for public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac100 % is 100Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin Micunt
99.9 leaves the possibility of failure or delays
As far as people getting annoyed at me they can go shove a stick up their asses, all I am doing is passing on things I hear.
Until Stars gives an official announcement nothing is set in stone
That's the thing with these rumors (many of the disagreements I have with Druff are regarding this same thing) you have to be very careful with how you word things, and you have to make it crystal clear what is your opinion, what is second-hand information, and what the actual facts are. Saying 99.9% is setting yourself up to fail if it doesn't go through, as most people would take 99.9% to mean a lock unless there is a natural catastrophe and the PokerStars home office is swallowed by the sea Atlantis style.
skipping through the thread on 4 you also were adamant in defending what you wrote as the facts, so that might be why you got attacked as well. When you use anonymous sources you are also taking a big risk. As an example, here is how I ended my article on this topic http://www.examiner.com/article/poke...one-by-may-23:
"Of course, this is still all rumor and a heavy dose of speculation at this point, but with so many different outlets reporting basically the same thing it seems like this is the most credible (and perhaps last) chance players will get to see some resolution when it comes to Full Tilt Poker."
The question is, have you been wrong only once for every 1,000 times you've used that phrase?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac100 % is 100Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin Micunt
99.9 leaves the possibility of failure or delays
As far as people getting annoyed at me they can go shove a stick up their asses, all I am doing is passing on things I hear.
Until Stars gives an official announcement nothing is set in stone
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by PLOLThe question is, have you been wrong only once for every 1,000 times you've used that phrase?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Poker players of all people should understand and use percentages in a more realistic manner. I doubt you were any more than AA over KK sure.
Yeah, saying that the fact there was not an announcement this week only had a 0.1% chance of happening was beyond retarded. Its obv going to happen sooner or later, so you actually had a decent chance of being right with or without "sources", but it was no where even close to 99.9%
But at least you were trying to predict something, unlike the other d-bags on 4 who wait for info to come out and then after the fact say "Yeah this is what I had been hearing from my sources all along"
Retarded is thinking "This month Santa is going to give me all my money back".
Just about every month since nov 2011 I've heard from someone "O yeah, FTP is coming back _next month_" and surprise surprise, it still hasnt. Then throw in the "Stars has bought FTP" thats been throwing around on a weekly basis and its still fail.
Your money disappeared over a year ago, if it magically returns, count yourself lucky, dont expect it to return.
I like China and all, but he sure sounds like a scam victim checking his mailbox. The problem with scam victims is not the money they lost, it's the fact they believe every possibility they will get their money back.
China, there is no reason why Pokerstars will buy a bankrupt company for the sole purpose of refunding money. Life does not work that way. Keep checking your mailbox. You may get your coveted annoucement one day as ceremonial deism, but you will never get a check.
There's a difference between trusting that a source could have been even close to 100% accurate about a timeline (which I agree was a mistake) and believing that such a deal is on the table. A number of the more reputable poker news sites have confirmed through their sources that a PS/FTP deal is being discussed and the circumstantial evidence supports this (no denial from Stars and FTP's comment that they are more hopeful than ever of a positive outcome).
One thing I find kind of funny about the 2p2 thread is that for months people were complaining that nobody with sources was willing to discuss or speculate about the progress of the GBT deal. Then China hears something about the Stars deal through a source that has now been confirmed by both Jsearles and Druff, decides to share it and he not only gets flamed but faces all kinds of crazy accusations of having made the whole thing up.
This is precisely why the guys who have a reputation as journalists on the line can't pipe in about every rumor they hear. But that doesn't mean a player who catches wind of something shouldn't speak up and there's no point in busting his balls when the info doesn't pan out.
China put too much faith in the source's ability to accurately define a timeline. This is true even if the source's information was completely accurate at the time (which may or may not be the case), just because one has to assume that the nature of such deals is very fluid and subject to change right up until the last second that the paperwork is signed. But sharing the info he received was more or less a service to the community and he doesn't deserve some of the things that are being said about him as a result.
Even if I was wrong twice for 99.9% there is such thing as variance , run it a millions times it will most likely even outQuote:
Originally Posted by PLOLThe question is, have you been wrong only once for every 1,000 times you've used that phrase?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Agreed, always chance of failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeBet
And I wasn't even making a prediction. I was just passing on what someone informed me
Agreed, but the question is, did you set a good line? Do you really think there was only a 1 in 1k chance of it happening? I'm sure some people would contend that even if you ran it a million times that it wouldn't come out to 1 in a 1,000. Really it comes down to, would you have offered 500 to 1 on it at the time (would've been very +EV for you)? But somehow I don't think you would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniacEven if I was wrong twice for 99.9% there is such thing as variance , run it a millions times it will most likely even outQuote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuppets
:)
Let me say again that I don't think you did anything wrongwith what you posted, although I think the language was a bit too concrete, and didn't clearly separate the facts from the opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
BUT this statement is completely ridiculous considering what and how you reported it. OF COURSE IT MATTERS! You said 99.9% which to everyone but apparently you means "done-deal barring some major catastrophe" (which there wasn't). The deal didn't implode becuase of some 1-in-1,000 shot, it didn't go through (yet) because it was never anywhere near being a 99.9% lock. I don't understand why you don't just admit you were a little overzealous and maybe used some hyperbolic language? The way you are using a .1% margin of error is just making you look worse and allowing people to continue piling on.
It matters because this is what reporting is, separating the facts from the speculation and giving people a clear understanding of what is going on. When you stick your neck out like you did you have to be willing to face the consequences. Are you at fault for anythnig? Absolutely not. But you have to realize that anything you say from here on out has been hurt, no matter how good the info. When you say 99.9% and give a specific date you are owning out (despite your .1% hedge).
This "99.9% leaves room for falling through and delays" is almost as nutty as your "vouching" arguement. 99.9% means I have the contract I just haven't signed it, or I have the check I just have to bring it to the bank.
Ninja edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Oh, crap, I somehow confused Jsearles with Jasep. Sorry, Jasep!
Ninja edit #2:
Just in case anybody here doesn't bother with that thread, this just went up:
http://www.gaming-awards.com/NEWS/archives/9953
Don't ever make this mistake againQuote:
Originally Posted by themuppetsNinja edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Oh, crap, I somehow confused Jsearles with Jasep. Sorry, Jasep!
Ninja edit #2:
Just in case anybody here doesn't bother with that thread, this just went up:
http://www.gaming-awards.com/NEWS/archives/9953
:knife
Wow, there's a pretty big difference there.Quote:
Originally Posted by themuppetsNinja edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Oh, crap, I somehow confused Jsearles with Jasep. Sorry, Jasep!
Ninja edit #2:
Just in case anybody here doesn't bother with that thread, this just went up:
http://www.gaming-awards.com/NEWS/archives/9953
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OLet me say again that I don't think you did anything wrongwith what you posted, although I think the language was a bit too concrete, and didn't clearly separate the facts from the opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
BUT this statement is completely ridiculous considering what and how you reported it. OF COURSE IT MATTERS! You said 99.9% which to everyone but apparently you means "done-deal barring some major catastrophe" (which there wasn't).
this is what I was told
The deal didn't implode becuase of some 1-in-1,000 shot, it didn't go through (yet)
I am told they could effectively announce they have made a deal right now
because it was never anywhere near being a 99.9% lock.
According to my people it was , they thought the payment issue would be sorted easier than it turned out to be
But you have to realize that anything you say from here on out has been hurt, no matter how good the info.
Doesnt bother me, I am just trying to pass on what I hear.
Ya some guy Chinamaniac had this theory on Thursday on 2+2 and was ripped for it, and was informed from his sources this was the main goal of Pokerstars because they want to get back to advertising and setting up booths on US soil at the biggest event in the world among other things :)Quote:
Originally Posted by themuppetsNinja edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by chinamaniac
Oh, crap, I somehow confused Jsearles with Jasep. Sorry, Jasep!
Ninja edit #2:
Just in case anybody here doesn't bother with that thread, this just went up:
http://www.gaming-awards.com/NEWS/archives/9953
Could happen , might not happen, maybe they copied me or received the same info. But I was informed the same thing
That's just what I was told was one of their main goals regarding the deal was to have it ready by start of WSOP for this exact purpose
I won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasep
Yeah, I've been lurking these forums enough to know better. I def know who is who and which is which. It was just an embarrassingly bad slip of the pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
LOL, not a big deal you are forgiven.....Quote:
Originally Posted by themuppetsI won't.
Yeah, I've been lurking these forums enough to know better. I def know who is who and which is which. It was just an embarrassingly bad slip of the pen.Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
I'm not getting in to it in the thread on 2p2 because a few of the trolls over there are brutal and i am not looking to duplicate the china effect only with me replaced for him. I never even looked in that thread until the day I posted and I probably won't post again.
What I said for anyone who missed it and just so you know....
I was present for the conversation that china had with his source, I would also rate the source as someone in the know and the words 99.9% were not chinas...
He reported the details of the conversation exactly as they happened.