jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

this thread is bananas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JUSTIFIEDhomicide

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLL

Druff obviously loves the drama since he hasn't made a clear statement regarding this since yesterday.

---

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gut

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

---

$500

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gut

Have we come to a conclusion on the value of China's pieces yet?

---

bout tree fiddy

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

And we are back on track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

---

Just for clarification purposes, I dont think he is offering makeup. I think he is offering stakeback which is different. Its an even more LOL argument, but different nonetheless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

---

:facepalm


actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

---

:facepalm


actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

---

Maybe you are mentioning just for to make sure everything is 100% clear (*giggles*) but isnt stakeback on a stake SOP about 99.5% of the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

China's deal is unfair for a few reasons:

1) Making a package that includes cash games and tournaments is unfair to the investor. (Cash games don't have the same upside as tournaments, and it gives China the ability to basically dilute your returns from the tournament.)

Ex: Let's say you buy 20% of the package for $2000 (getting 65% of 20%= 13% of the profit). You have essentially bought him into the first tournament and are only entitled to 13% of the winnings?

Short-term staking is supposed to be a +EV lottery ticket. This means you only want to invest in the tournaments. His cash game portion of the deal adds no value; it actually negatively affects the value from an investor's point of view.

2) Claiming that there is make-up is ridiculous. You are playing two tournaments and probably a few hours of cash games. Don't act like your "make-up" adds that much value compared to the deal Druff structured. Make-up is used for long-term staking agreements. That would not apply to this case.


I didn't even mention the 65/35 split...

---

:facepalm


actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

---

Your deal is terrible. Combining cash games and tournaments on such a short-term deal is obviously great for you, but horrible for an investor. There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events. Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime? Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.

Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments. How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

:facepalm


actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

---

Your deal is terrible. Combining cash games and tournaments on such a short-term deal is obviously great for you, but horrible for an investor. There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events. Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime? Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.

Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments. How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

---

Cash games would provide a better ROI% long term but MTTs are better if you are looking to bink a big win in a short amount of time. Thats what WSOP staking is about. I agree he is throwing the cash in just to make the deal appear better. I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

Also, did you just ninja drop in the 23.6% for LOLZ? Isnt that the exact amount of DD that DD owned?

You are being very vague on the terms of the cash game portion of the stake. Set some defined hours, and play prior to the tournaments. That way you can't adjust your allocation of time depending on how you do in the tournaments.

As far as the 23.6%, I looked at the percentage you would get if you only invested in the tournaments with 2k (2000/5500 = .3636* .65 = 23.6%), compared to if you invested in the entire package (2000/10000= .20 * .65 = 13%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

You are being very vague on the terms of the cash game portion of the stake. Set some defined hours, and play prior to the tournaments. That way you can't adjust your allocation of time depending on how you do in the tournaments.

---

In before the - well it depends on how i do in the tournaments and how much time I have.
*seemingly implying that if he does well in the tournies that the cash is just a way to dilute the water as you have already touched on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

... I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

---

I must admit that I've been confused about this mention of "stakeback" since the offer was announced. Can somebody provide an example -- a simple mathematical hypothetical -- of a deal offering "stakeback" and a deal not offering "stakeback"? (which, in my limited understanding, is just that the staker gets his investment back before "profits" are calculated... well, duh!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandwich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

... I also agree that throwing around the word "stakeback" is just a fancy way to muddy the waters for unsuspecting donors.

---

I must admit that I've been confused about this mention of "stakeback" since the offer was announced. Can somebody provide an example -- a simple mathematical hypothetical -- of a deal offering "stakeback" and a deal not offering "stakeback"? (which, in my limited understanding, is just that the staker gets his investment back before "profits" are calculated... well, duh!)

---

A stakeback is in basically every staking arrangement. I skimmed his thread and I thought I saw someone mention make-up, but apparently I was mistaken.

Let's say someone stakes you for a $10,000 tournament and you agree to split the winnings 60/40. You end up cashing for $50,000

W/ Stakeback:

50,000-10,000= 40,000 * .4 = $16,000 for the person being backed, and $24,000 profit for the backer

W/o stakeback:

50,000 * .4= $20,000 for the person being backed, and $20,000 profit for the backer.



Basically, when you don't have a stakeback and you cash for more than the buy-in, the investor loses out on 40% of the buy-in compared to an arrangement w/ stakeback. (Using the 60/40 split mentioned above.)

So, if you cash 15% of the time, a stakeback adds around 6% per tournament. (Using the same 60/40 split)

Math:

$2,000 tournament, 15% cash rate (assuming the min-cash is > the buy-in, and same 60/40 split in favor of the backer)

$2,000 * .40= $800 * .15= $120 in EV gained by the backer (relative to a non-stakeback deal)

120/2000= 6% per tournament

Lol phoneaments

so why don't you write up a fail blog about it already. Fucking loser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lewfather

so why don't you write up a fail blog about it already. Fucking loser.

---

So nice you did it twice? Lew, you've posted on these forums for six straight years, and you've yet to create a memorable post. Being called a loser by a man such as yourself is an honor!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

:facepalm


actually cash games provide a better ROI than tournaments to the majority of winning cash game players


There is no makeup . There is a stakeback. And the past 2 years I have cashed and had to pay stakebacks on all buyins before profits

---

There's no way that LHE cash games provide a better ROI than WSOP events.

:lol




Also, it gives you too many built-in options. Let's say you strike out in both tournaments. Are you really going to bust your ass to grind back the money you blew on the tournaments before you will ever see a dime?

Ya I am going to play cash games and grind for my backers. I have run 2 stakes of 3 months a piece in the past 9 months and maybe took 3 full 24 hr periods off. I am probably leaving town directly after the 2nd MTT win lose or draw. So I could be ahead or behind in cash games at that point. But I probably win close to 7 out of 10 live sessions and am giving 65 % of the profits to the backers so this is an added incentive for THEM


Let's say you cash for $100k in the tournaments. Are you really going to grind out those cash games? No, you'll probably play a few hours and that will be that. That way, you only have to pay out 13% of the winnings (on a 20% investment) from the tournaments instead of 23.6%.
If I hit for 100k on the first MTT I will still play cash in my spare time if the games are good. Regardless of what happens in the MTTS or Cash games all money when I leave Vegas will be pooled and split


Everyone knows your cash game portion of the deal is a creative way to dilute the returns from the tournaments.
Disagree, I have sold 80% already and some very sharp stakers have bought action. How is it diluting anything? All money is pooled back in and divided up.

Let's say there were 0 good cash games. The extra 4500 goes back into the roll and the makeup has to be paid back.

Also I am a favorite in the cash games and I am giving them a very good cut on the action!!!!


How about you offer separate packages. If your ROI from cash games is so great, then people will jump at the opportunity to buy-in to that separate package!

How about I run my Baps the way I want to!!!! This is very standard to add both together

---

:yes

It's okay bro, there are enough delusional people that won't see through this deal. I'm sure the "sharps" are knocking down doors to get a piece of the action. Just curious, has Druff bought a piece?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

It's okay bro, there are enough delusional people that won't see through this deal. I'm sure the "sharps" are knocking down doors to get a piece of the action. Just curious, has Druff bought a piece?

---

No, and I haven't bought any of druffs action. Druff doesnt buy pieces. And yes a few sharp stakers have bought pieces

If me or just about any winning cash game player played a lifetime of WSOP events and played cash games in the same span of time during these events I would guess and lean heavily towards they would have a MUCH MUCH better chance to be ahead in cash games.

How you don't see I dont get. There are a ton of very good MTT players who are stuck thousands and hundreds of thousands from MTTS.

There are much more winning cash game players around than long term winning MTT players

If I was the staker I would much rather stake a cash player. Hence why I feel I am offering a pretty good bonus to the stakers with cash play.

Aren't you the guy who said live limit wasnt beatable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

It's okay bro, there are enough delusional people that won't see through this deal. I'm sure the "sharps" are knocking down doors to get a piece of the action. Just curious, has Druff bought a piece?

---

No, and I haven't bought any of druffs action. Druff doesnt buy pieces. And yes a few sharp stakers have bought pieces

If me or just about any winning cash game player played a lifetime of WSOP events and played cash games in the same span of time during these events I would guess and lean heavily towards they would have a MUCH MUCH better chance to be ahead in cash games.

How you don't see I dont get. There are a ton of very good MTT players who are stuck thousands and hundreds of thousands from MTTS.

There are much more winning cash game players around than long term winning MTT players

If I was the staker I would much rather stake a cash player. Hence why I feel I am offering a pretty good bonus to the stakers with cash play.

Aren't you the guy who said live limit wasnt beatable?

---

I'm the guy who beat 100/200 LHE on the INTERNETZ.

You don't understand why I am making fun of your deal?

It's a deal for the short-term. If it were a long-term deal I wouldn't be saying this.

Cash games in the short-term have a a lot of variance and offer little upside. WSOP tournaments have a tremendous amount of variance but offer an enormous upside.

I still feel that cash games at the WSOP have a lower ROI than WSOP tournaments. The WSOP is a tournament pro's wet-dream.


I would never buy this deal even if I thought you were worthy of the 65/35 split. And I am a sharp guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

It's okay bro, there are enough delusional people that won't see through this deal. I'm sure the "sharps" are knocking down doors to get a piece of the action. Just curious, has Druff bought a piece?

---

No, and I haven't bought any of druffs action. Druff doesnt buy pieces. And yes a few sharp stakers have bought pieces

If me or just about any winning cash game player played a lifetime of WSOP events and played cash games in the same span of time during these events I would guess and lean heavily towards they would have a MUCH MUCH better chance to be ahead in cash games.

How you don't see I dont get. There are a ton of very good MTT players who are stuck thousands and hundreds of thousands from MTTS.

There are much more winning cash game players around than long term winning MTT players

If I was the staker I would much rather stake a cash player. Hence why I feel I am offering a pretty good bonus to the stakers with cash play.

Aren't you the guy who said live limit wasnt beatable?

---

The way I look at it is that the cash game aspect of the BAP helps control the overall variance. Now obviously for a one-off staking this is meaningless, but in the long-run it definitely helps, especially considering the absurd variance in WSOP events.

Suppose China busts out of both events before the money (the most likely scenario) but does well in the cash games and turns a small profit for the trip. This keeps his backers from being donuted. So if my understanding of his BAP is correct (which it very well might not be LOL) if he ended up at $12,000 for the trip after busting both tournaments but doing well in cash games, $7,800 would be divided up amongst his backers with each $100 bought returning $78, which is far better than zero. (This is without the stakeback which is still a little fuzzy to me but seems relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things)

***EDIT*** actually scratch all that after looking at the stakeback thing again you would get your $100 + a 1% share of $130
In the end I would find these small gains far outweigh the chance of getting a raw deal if he lands a massive tournament score, since they are going to come into play far more often.

Not to mention it's a member of the community playing in the WSOP, so I would rather back China than some unknown of equal skill even if the deal was a little better with the unknown --which is why I bought $100 of both China and Druff

You going to be in LV this series HP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lewfather

You going to be in LV this series HP?

---

Probably not, I'll be working for the man. I may try to go for a weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Druff, Steve O and Tony Bags would all be suitable arbitrators for this bet... would you honor whatever side any of those three say should pay?

---

Druff and T-bag have both been very vocal in voicing their disdain for me. I recently knocked Steve-O out of the HU tournament. I don't think I can get a fair and impartial jury here. I may have to seek a change of venue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Joke... you are implying now that 3 insanely respected people would rule against you based on their history with you and you LOL winning a heads up match.

---

To imply that people who have voiced their displeasure with me very recently would be suitable to arbitrate a bet is simply absurd. Are you familiar with the term impartial? How about conflict of interest?

The Steve-O thing was a joke. I would consider Steve-O as one of the panel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

Quote:

---

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

---

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Druff and T-bag have both been very vocal in voicing their disdain for me. I recently knocked Steve-O out of the HU tournament. I don't think I can get a fair and impartial jury here. I may have to seek a change of venue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Joke... you are implying now that 3 insanely respected people would rule against you based on their history with you and you LOL winning a heads up match.

---

To imply that people who have voiced their displeasure with me very recently would be suitable to arbitrate a bet is simply absurd. Are you familiar with the term impartial? How about conflict of interest?

The Steve-O thing was a joke. I would consider Steve-O as one of the panel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

Quote:

---

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

---

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Joke... you are implying now that 3 insanely respected people would rule against you based on their history with you and you LOL winning a heads up match.

---

To imply that people who have voiced their displeasure with me very recently would be suitable to arbitrate a bet is simply absurd. Are you familiar with the term impartial? How about conflict of interest?

The Steve-O thing was a joke. I would consider Steve-O as one of the panel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

Quote:

---

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

---

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

---

lol classic scammer mentality, if you say it enough times it must be true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

To imply that people who have voiced their displeasure with me very recently would be suitable to arbitrate a bet is simply absurd. Are you familiar with the term impartial? How about conflict of interest?

The Steve-O thing was a joke. I would consider Steve-O as one of the panel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

Quote:

---

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

---

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

---

lol classic scammer mentality, if you say it enough times it must be true

---

You have to clarify the terms better. I was unaware I was required to believe that? You just said say it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

Quote:

---

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

---

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

---

lol classic scammer mentality, if you say it enough times it must be true

---

You have to clarify the terms better. I was unaware I was required to believe that? You just said say it

---

yawn, hopefully by the time i log on tomorrow this guy will be ip banned and not fagging up a perfectly good forum anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fag boy

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

---

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

---

lol classic scammer mentality, if you say it enough times it must be true

---

You have to clarify the terms better. I was unaware I was required to believe that? You just said say it

---

yawn, hopefully by the time i log on tomorrow this guy will be ip banned and not fagging up a perfectly good forum anymore

---

Care to place a wager on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DABADASS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

No, and I haven't bought any of druffs action. Druff doesnt buy pieces. And yes a few sharp stakers have bought pieces

If me or just about any winning cash game player played a lifetime of WSOP events and played cash games in the same span of time during these events I would guess and lean heavily towards they would have a MUCH MUCH better chance to be ahead in cash games.

How you don't see I dont get. There are a ton of very good MTT players who are stuck thousands and hundreds of thousands from MTTS.

There are much more winning cash game players around than long term winning MTT players

If I was the staker I would much rather stake a cash player. Hence why I feel I am offering a pretty good bonus to the stakers with cash play.

Aren't you the guy who said live limit wasnt beatable?

---

I'm the guy who beat 100/200 LHE on the INTERNETZ.

You don't understand why I am making fun of your deal?

It's a deal for the short-term. If it were a long-term deal I wouldn't be saying this.

Cash games in the short-term have a a lot of variance and offer little upside. WSOP tournaments have a tremendous amount of variance but offer an enormous upside.

I still feel that cash games at the WSOP have a lower ROI than WSOP tournaments. The WSOP is a tournament pro's wet-dream.


I would never buy this deal even if I thought you were worthy of the 65/35 split. And I am a sharp guy.

---

Congrats on beating 100-200 on the internetz? And what does that prove? I beat 30-60 and 50 -100 on the internets as well when I could play

Short term or long term I am +ev in cash games and will probably offer MORE cash action this year. I am 4 for 4 on stakes and have made my backers money on every BAP. Some are playing with house money

WSOP have upside but so does any type of gambling where this potential for huge payouts, but one could whiff 50 in a row with 0 cashes as well> Bottom linme is cash is more consistent. Any "Sharp Guy" should know that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fag boy

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RealTalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

---

here is your quote jsearles try to say you didnt fuck up the chance to have these 3 be your arbs already

---

I didn't fuck up them being the arbitrators. That was easy. Any other challenges?

---

lol classic scammer mentality, if you say it enough times it must be true

---

You have to clarify the terms better. I was unaware I was required to believe that? You just said say it

---

yawn, hopefully by the time i log on tomorrow this guy will be ip banned and not fagging up a perfectly good forum anymore[/QUOTE]

Care to place a wager on that?[/QUOTE]

You gonna pay?

Holy fuck you people are still arguing this shit? Do you people get off the computer? And fuck sakes searles proposing a new wager

:facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

I disagree that my original reply states that I agree with you on every single interpretation. I do agree that some people are interpreting this bet differently, that much is obvious. I never stated "I dont agree with this" because I do agree that there are seemingly multiple interpretations. I dont have to agree with each interpretatoin to acknowledge that they exist. I dont have to agree with the points of both republicans and democrats. I would be foolish to disagree with someone that says both parties have differing views!

---

Just trying to get caught up after taking the whole fam to the Mariner game today.

This is one of the most poorly written statements I've seen in some time.

Here is another way to look at it

I pick 5 of my buddies who are similar players to me. But I get to choose 1

I have an option of staking them in cash 5 days at wsop or 2 events. I would rather cash. Better chance to cash. Wont be as big but they will beat the games more often than not.

You may feel different but thats where I stand. Not to mention I am taking a small cut on cash games

PZ

go celtics

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

http://i.imgur.com/8bRAR.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg196...if&res=landing