jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[Deal]

Congrats to Vegas on the win. Druff has stated elsewhere that anyone rolling another member here will be banned. Hopefully jsearles pays up to avoid this unpleasant occurrence.

[Sloppy Joe]

Sounds good. Good luck on the forums...

I have nothing against you, and you seem very articulate. Let me toss you a piece of advice. If you don't like the aggression, I'd stay away from conflict all together. Because even if you say the right thing, their are fifty trolls waiting to pile on you just to fuck with you.

And another thing. You can figure everything out. That's great, but in the end Druff will read every word in this thread and make his own decision. You can call in three million arbitrators and their word will mean nothing once Druff makes a ruling.

Does anyone else find it odd that Todd, who cant miss shit, hasnt commented on the thread that has doubled the next longest thread in PFA history?

He has now; God has spoken. Pay your debts fatty

[jsearles22]

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.

I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

[Crowe Diddly]

If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

[Sloppy Joe]

He isn't going to pay; time to unleash the hounds on this piece of shit.

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

[Deal]

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

[LLL]

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.

I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

Beyond HOF!

[RichardBrodiesCombover.]

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.

I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

So it's Vegas fault that you're a fucking idiot?

[neveragain39]

I've only read about half of this thread.
So here is what I have to say about the first half:
jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. , and jsearles should pay up.

Didn't read.
But seriously, is it true that the misuse of then/than debate needed 13 pages to sort?

[Muck Ficon]

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

[TheTemplar]

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

Never saw it....

[Steve-O]

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

Never saw it....

Me neither... which is a subtle hint for someone to post it

[Jasep]

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.

I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

[RichardBrodiesCombover.]

Never saw it....

Me neither... which is a subtle hint for someone to post it

or the pizza face one at least

[Dan Druff]

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.

I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

[Jasep]

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

[jsearles22]

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

He offered the bet, I didn't trick him. I accepted the terms as they were offered. When asked for clarification shortly thereafter by someone else wanting to bet, I gladly did so.

Also refer to my signature. Vegas bullied me regarding my grammar only to mis-state the bet terms. How stupid can he be?

[Deal]

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

What are the odds he tries to fag up your forum once it opens?

[RealTalk]

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

He offered the bet, I didn't trick him. I accepted the terms as they were offered. When asked for clarification shortly thereafter by someone else wanting to bet, I gladly did so.

Also refer to my signature. Vegas bullied me regarding my grammar only to mis-state the bet terms. How stupid can he be?

[Jasep]

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

What are the odds he tries to fag up your forum once it opens?