jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[RealTalk]

If you accept a wager and lose, whether or not you understood it to whichever interpretation of your your choosing is irrelevant. Pretty sure if you don't pay or come to some agreement with Vegas you're going to get slapped with the scammer atleast to some degree a variation of it ie welcher.

Is $500 worth being trashed? I guess it's just the internet but not really a smart game to be playing.

Who said I lost?

Personally, I think he is doing alright, and actually has a valid arguement for the cancellation of the bet, or a reduction in the amount of it... like I said 200 posts ago

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled.

why do you keep quoting these guys when you already declined to use them as arbitrators? all the sudden their opinion is one you value and want to use to bolster your case? when they offered to arb you were adamant they could not be trusted as fair and unbiased.

you keep spinning and dodging and deflecting instead of sacking up and settling on an arbitrator. its clear that you and vegas do not agree on the terms or results of this bet. both of you are gigantic morons for not clarifying and not using escrow(vegas moreso than you on this one).

but the fact still remains that when a bet is in dispute, the only way to come to a conclusion is arbitration. you keep saying you cant get a fair arb, but still have not nominated anyone that you would deem as fair. you even claim druff could not be unbiased as he has been outspoken on your terrible-ness as a poster recently...yet somehow say you are waiting for him to weigh in on this matter?

stop being an attention whore and start trying to offer legit solutions to get this bullshit settled and off the front page.

[peter mcneil]

Who said I lost?

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled.

You're clinging onto these two posts like they hold any validity, Steve-O for one never sided with you. He's just pointing out how you might have a case, he did the same with Vegas1369. T-Bags is god but this is just his opinion on the matter.

Tony is not the ruler on this board, unfortunately.

I apologize. I thought Vegas hand picked Steve-O, Tony, and Druff?

He did and that sounds fair. Steve O has clearly stated in this thread you owe something, Tony thinks a cancellation is fair and we are waiting on Druff. Are you willing to use these 3 as the fair and impartial judges? You will go by their decision?

[lewfather]

And just so you know, Druff also is not siding with you.

If you read his posts, he mentions not to out any information until he makes his ruling. So basically he's saying when he determines if you're a scammer/welcher all bets are off until he gets paid.

[jsearles22]

And just so you know, Druff also is not siding with you.

If you read his posts, he mentions not to out any information until he makes his ruling. So basically he's saying when he determines if you're a scammer/welcher all bets are off until he gets paid.

If/when, tomato/tomato

[lewfather]

Good, I just wanted to make it crystal for you. Because I won't be welching.

[JUSTIFIEDhomicide]

"absolutely, completely, utterly, unconditionally, unreservedly, firmly, & unhesitatingly" is different from "literally"

Hockey Guy, you want jsearles to find THE WORD "both"? Huh?

In any event, the third quote does say "those two words". No denying that.

This aspect of jsearles's argument seems, on its face, to be more valid and coherent than Vegas's (paraphrasing) "use of one word incorrectly means both are used incorrectly" argument.

I'm not saying that wins it for jsearles or loses it for Vegas, but let's not go off on a tirade on something as ridiculous of jsearles's useof the word "implicitly"!

The "logic" in this thread is mind-boggling.

Right, he does say "those two words", but that does not mean in the same post. Those two words are than and then. They are 1 and 2. Each post was scanned using THOSE TWO WORDS. Meaning, every post Vegas read thru had Multiple choice answer A or B. AKA, THOSE TWO WORDS. He had to produce twenty five posts where he used THOSE TWO WORDS wrong. not THOSE TWO WORDS IN THE SAME POST.

DUCY?

[jsearles22]

Who said I lost?

You're clinging onto these two posts like they hold any validity, Steve-O for one never sided with you. He's just pointing out how you might have a case, he did the same with Vegas1369. T-Bags is god but this is just his opinion on the matter.

Tony is not the ruler on this board, unfortunately.

I apologize. I thought Vegas hand picked Steve-O, Tony, and Druff?

He did and that sounds fair. Steve O has clearly stated in this thread you owe something, Tony thinks a cancellation is fair and we are waiting on Druff. Are you willing to use these 3 as the fair and impartial judges? You will go by their decision?

I am very interested to see what Druff has to say. With that being said, 2 out of 3 judges have already said void the bet. Majority rules still?

[RealTalk]

You're clinging onto these two posts like they hold any validity, Steve-O for one never sided with you. He's just pointing out how you might have a case, he did the same with Vegas1369. T-Bags is god but this is just his opinion on the matter.

Tony is not the ruler on this board, unfortunately.

I apologize. I thought Vegas hand picked Steve-O, Tony, and Druff?

He did and that sounds fair. Steve O has clearly stated in this thread you owe something, Tony thinks a cancellation is fair and we are waiting on Druff. Are you willing to use these 3 as the fair and impartial judges? You will go by their decision?

I am very interested to see what Druff has to say. With that being said, 2 out of 3 judges have already said void the bet. Majority rules still?

wow you are a huge faggot, they were offered as arbs earlier in the thread and you said no, tony waited for you to agree to him arbing the bet before he offered his opinion, you ignored the post like it didnt exist so he took his name out of the hat as an option and actually would have ruled somewhat in your favor...

now you want a majority rules result after declining to have all of them arb the bet in the first place?

ban this faggot already for fucks sake

edit: also reading comprehension ftw...Steve-O thinks you owe a reduced amount and tony thinks the bet should be voided. these are not the same thing...we all know if druff says a lesser amount should be awarded you have no intention of paying so there goes your majority rules angle...which doesnt matter anyways because you refused these 3 as viable arbitrators already earlier in the thread when they were presented

[lewfather]

I apologize. I thought Vegas hand picked Steve-O, Tony, and Druff?

He did and that sounds fair. Steve O has clearly stated in this thread you owe something, Tony thinks a cancellation is fair and we are waiting on Druff. Are you willing to use these 3 as the fair and impartial judges? You will go by their decision?

I am very interested to see what Druff has to say. With that being said, 2 out of 3 judges have already said void the bet. Majority rules still?

wow you are a huge faggot, they were offered as arbs earlier in the thread and you said no, tony waited for you to agree to him arbing the bet before he offered his opinion, you ignored the post like it didnt exist so he took his name out of the hat as an option and actually would have ruled somewhat in your favor...

now you want a majority rules result after declining to have all of them arb the bet in the first place?

ban this faggot already for fucks sake

[DABADASS]

I don't give a shit about this thread, but I can say that I'm a better player than China. After last night's tournament, my ROI is infinity.

But seriously, I am a better player than China. I played the highest LHE games and HU SNGs on the internet. It's too bad all my money is tied up in paying for grad school. Terms of the deal would be negotiable.

[peter mcneil]

Jsearles, are you now agreeing to those 3 as the arbitrators and will abide by what decision they hand down on the wager?

[Sandwich]

DUCY?

It's obvious what Vegas meant. I'm not questioning that. (In my opinion jsearles should have known that's what vegas's understanding was and he used that gap in understanding to his advantage... I think jsearles admits as much).

But the quote is this: "How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?"

Putting all the bullshit and backstory aside, you don't think that a reasonable interpretation of those words is both those two words in each one of the 15 posts?

[jsearles22]

Jsearles, are you now agreeing to those 3 as the arbitrators and will abide by what decision they hand down on the wager?

If I say yes then 2/3 have already ruled to void and that would be the result. If I say no you tilt monkeys who dont have a dog in this fight will keep dancing.

[jsearles22]

DUCY?

It's obvious what Vegas meant. I'm not questioning that. (In my opinion jsearles should have known that's what vegas's understanding was and he used that gap in understanding to his advantage... I think jsearles admits as much).

But the quote is this: "How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?"

Putting all the bullshit and backstory aside, you don't think that a reasonable interpretation of those words is both those two words in each one of the 15 posts?

[lewfather]

Jsearles, are you now agreeing to those 3 as the arbitrators and will abide by what decision they hand down on the wager?

If I say yes then 2/3 have already ruled to void and that would be the result. If I say no you tilt monkeys who dont have a dog in this fight will keep dancing.

You don't need a majority, this is druffs site. As in he runs the show. He's made that very clear, even on radio last night. Saying if there are problems on the site you dont need to go to anyone else BUT HIM.

so, sorry tbags and steveo but fuck off already.

[Steve-O]

Jsearles, are you now agreeing to those 3 as the arbitrators and will abide by what decision they hand down on the wager?

If I say yes then 2/3 have already ruled to void and that would be the result. If I say no you tilt monkeys who dont have a dog in this fight will keep dancing.

Just to be clear: I said voiding the bet is an option and that your point of view has merit

[LLL]

Jsearles, are you now agreeing to those 3 as the arbitrators and will abide by what decision they hand down on the wager?

If I say yes then 2/3 have already ruled to void and that would be the result. If I say no you tilt monkeys who dont have a dog in this fight will keep dancing.

Steve-O said an argument could be made to void or reduce the amount.

[Steve-O]

If I say yes then 2/3 have already ruled to void and that would be the result. If I say no you tilt monkeys who dont have a dog in this fight will keep dancing.

You don't need a majority, this is druffs site. As in he runs the show. He's made that very clear, even on radio last night. Saying if there are problems on the site you dont need to go to anyone else BUT HIM.

so, sorry tbags and steveo but fuck off already.

This isn't just about his place on the site though; it's about whether he welched on a bet; won the bet; or if the bet should be voided

[lewfather]

You don't need a majority, this is druffs site. As in he runs the show. He's made that very clear, even on radio last night. Saying if there are problems on the site you dont need to go to anyone else BUT HIM.

so, sorry tbags and steveo but fuck off already.

This isn't just about his place on the site though; it's about whether he welched on a bet; won the bet; or if the bet should be voided

Which site was the bet made on?

[Steve-O]

This isn't just about his place on the site though; it's about whether he welched on a bet; won the bet; or if the bet should be voided

Which site was the bet made on?

I'm not going to respond to this after this because it would sidetrack the from the actual issue, but a person's reputation doesn't stem from where a transgression was made, only if it occured and what the transgression was