[Optional]

It's fine to not welcome his action.

Confiscating a betting stake. That's not fine when I am dealing with a complaint and a book does it. They always must refund at least the deposit. They can never confiscate player deposited funds even if the player does break a rule. There is no justification SBR will accept for that.

And as far as whether Bobby owes DS for that bet, I don't think it is your, my or SBR's place to be making a determination.

Bite offered to be the forum judge already. Not sure you should step in to the role just because SBR didn't accept his offer yet.


But I would like to hear what Bite thinks about this one.

Once again someone is using the words "clear cut". What do you think Bite? Is this clear cut fair? How would you rule here?

[Triple_D_Bet]

It's fine to not welcome his action.

Confiscating a betting stake. That's not fine when I am dealing with a complaint and a book does it. They always must refund at least the deposit. They can never confiscate player deposited funds even if the player does break a rule. There is no justification SBR will accept for that.

And as far as whether Bobby owes DS for that bet, I don't think it is your, my or SBR's place to be making a determination.

Bite offered to be the forum judge already. Not sure you should step in to the role just because SBR didn't accept his offer yet.


But I would like to hear what Bite thinks about this one.

Once again someone is using the words "clear cut". What do you think Bite? Is this clear cut fair? How would you rule here?

You're probably right regarding a book, and very likely a book would refund a deposit in a similar case (where they banned a guy but he tries to deposit again anyways)...I'm not sure if they'd refund the money if the player had scammed the book itself instead, but the analogy kind of breaks down there. Those are the terms I offer though; when all parties are aware they exist and choose to go forward anyways, there's nobody to blame but the guy who expected things to happen differently. I don't see this as any different than try or yis offering lines with the same rules they've always used; if someone edits their post in one of try's threads where he doesn't explicitly mention it, is he expected to hold their hand and refund their points instead of going by the terms he's had forever, especially if the person editing was recently reminded of that?

I'm not assuming the role of forum judge (deciding a dispute between other parties), I'm simply enforcing the rules and limitations I put on what I offered. As mentioned previously, whether or not bobbo is actually a stiff isn't even relevant to this situation (although it's pretty clear); both him and I knew that I considered him a stiff and would treat him accordingly, and he chose to try to enter anyways. I trust biters judgement though, and even without an official title from SBR, I'd refund if that's his decision.

[Optional]

I like you Trip and know you think you are doing the right thing.

But no book gets to say our terms say we can confiscate deposits and have SBR accept it. Several books, big ones included, have changed their terms just because SBR is unbending on that particular issue.

Anyway, wasn't up for criticizing you or trying to force anything but did think it was time to try and inject some perspective into this. I can see that TryTryTry can also see the issue here from his posts but people, understandably, don't want to say what's unpopular.

I hope Bite comes along though. This is exactly the sort of situation that comes up daily. Each side thinks it's clear cut what is right but in reality it's as cloudy as hell.

[Russian Rocket]

If you have a negative balance with a book - They will confiscate your very next deposit.

Booby has an outstanding balance of 70K...and I think it's only fair that someone started to enforce his payments towards satisfying that balance.

He thought, that he outsmarted everyone, when he initially made that bet. Unfortunately for him, he's just not that bright and his own stupidity got him in trouble then...and now in this thread when he made the wager with Triple_D.

Good job 3D...and I got your back pal!

[Triple_D_Bet]

I like you Trip and know you think you are doing the right thing.

But no book gets to say our terms say we can confiscate deposits and have SBR accept it. Several books, big ones included, have changed their terms just because SBR is unbending on that particular issue.

Appreciate that Opti...didn't know that was a thing that happened or that SBR got those changes made, interesting! What reasons were they giving for confiscating deposits?

[Triple_D_Bet]

If you have a negative balance with a book - They will confiscate your very next deposit.

Booby has an outstanding balance of 70K...and I think it's only fair that someone started to enforce his payments towards satisfying that balance.

He thought, that he outsmarted everyone, when he initially made that bet. Unfortunately for him, he's just not that bright and his own stupidity got him in trouble then...and now in this thread when he made the wager with Triple_D.

Good job 3D...and I got your back pal!

Thanks rocker! I'm not sure if anyone argues a books ability to seize a deposit to right a negative balance with them (is that the case Opti?), but this is slightly different in that it wasn't a negative balance with me, more like another book I share a network with. I think that stating I'll enforce another book's debt makes it clear...but then again, I'm very much a contract guy, in that people entering into contracts of their own choice should be held to them.

[Russian Rocket]

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with other people helping out posters to collect from the scammers and stiffs like Carseller, Boobywaves...etc.

Cheers!

[Optional]

Appreciate that Opti...didn't know that was a thing that happened or that SBR got those changes made, interesting! What reasons were they giving for confiscating deposits?

Reasons like this exact one a few times. I have one poor guy right now with a huge balance at a CR book who says he caused drama for some other book with their payment processor so they are confiscating the balance. They are paying him his deposit but they are still in the wrong to withhold anything for this sort of reason, I think. (the player also flatly denies ever reversing charges on anyone in this case too)

1xbet would confiscate deposit+winnings of everyone they accused of syndicate betting or multi accounting or just about anything. They changed policy on that.

Some books just feel like they have a right to take punitive action. But they aren't the law or a govt body so have no rights to issue fines.

[brainfreeze]

I get what opti is saying, it's unprofessional if you want to be treated like a book.. Because you're letting feelings get in the way by playing juror and judge yourself... Bob hasn't necessarily been convicted of what is claimed, though we all know he did it, he hasn't been convicted other than by majority of his peers... So I think opti' saying its unprofessional to label him one, and confiscate his points.

i still think it's right, is it proffesional ? Idk... Guess that's up for debate to, bob owes " a book " and dashed out on the debt and saying he's not paying. Then Bob goes to another " book " that networks with the book he's saying he won't pay ... I'm pretty sure they will play juror and judge to, companies have to deal with disputes all the time and even pay for teams to do so... Idk, so what do you think opti, he should give back those points? and what if he would've won the contest, then it would be trips slip up for forgetting he was in it?

[Optional]

I get what opti is saying, it's unprofessional if you want to be treated like a book.. Because you're letting feelings get in the way by playing juror and judge yourself... Bob hasn't necessarily been convicted of what is claimed, though we all know he did it, he hasn't been convicted other than by majority of his peers... So I think opti' saying its unprofessional to label him one, and confiscate his points.

i still think it's right, is it proffesional ? Idk... Guess that's up for debate to, bob owes " a book " and dashed out on the debt and saying he's not paying. Then Bob goes to another " book " that networks with the book he's saying he won't pay ... I'm pretty sure they will play juror and judge to, companies have to deal with disputes all the time and even pay for teams to do so... Idk, so what do you think opti, he should give back those points? and what if he would've won the contest, then it would be trips slip up for forgetting he was in it?

He already said no action so I don't think the outcome is relevant now. And I don't really care what Trip does either way. He'll do what he thinks is right.

I really only weighed in to re-enforce the point that it's not a simple thing to police all these private loans, bets and deals. Which was a discussion happening in another thread with Bitemeusadoj.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Reasons like this exact one a few times. I have one poor guy right now with a huge balance at a CR book who says he caused drama for some other book with their payment processor so they are confiscating the balance. They are paying him his deposit but they are still in the wrong to withhold anything for this sort of reason, I think. (the player also flatly denies ever reversing charges on anyone in this case too)

1xbet would confiscate deposit+winnings of everyone they accused of syndicate betting or multi accounting or just about anything. They changed policy on that.

Some books just feel like they have a right to take punitive action. But they aren't the law or a govt body so have no rights to issue fines.

Good to know! Without knowing the full details which might lead me to a different conclusion, I'd say that the book has the right to do whatever they claimed they can do and to which the better willingly agreed when they joined. If they said "we reserve the right to seize funds of players who commit certain acts", and those conditions were made apparent to the player who still wished to play at that book, then all they should have to do is prove it and be completely justified in taking the actions both parties agreed to. That does raise the question of who they prove it to of course; proving it to SBR works in those cases, and if the proof is sufficient, I'd hope SBR would support the agreement made and allow the book to take the actions they stipulated. Again, don't know all the details, so could be way off.

In this situation, bobbo's guilt is not only proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, but is irrelevant. He was aware that he was considered guilty of being a stiff before sending points and trying to participate anyways. He probably wasn't aware (but should have been, having participated in plenty of my contests before) what I'd do with points sent to me by people I consider stiffs. Put it all together with his past behavior, and you've got a guy who knows he isn't going to be allowed to participate sending points just to get some attention. Backfired on him due to his ignorance (the same way the bet he stiffed on did), and now he's running around making idle threats to punch/kick/whatever WWE move he last saw on TV me at a bash he isn't attending.

Looking forward to bite weighing in, but I can't see how I did anything wrong here by doing what I said and what bobbo should have known I would do. Objections from him are to be expected, as hypocritical as they are (the guy throws a fit over not getting his points back, but refused to send back 1 POINT to jay when he was shown that jay overpaid); he has a history of changing his opinions to match what benefits him at the moment, but that doesn't make him correct.

[Triple_D_Bet]

He already said no action so I don't think the outcome is relevant now. And I don't really care what Trip does either way. He'll do what he thinks is right.

I really only weighed in to re-enforce the point that it's not a simple thing to police all these private loans, bets and deals. Which was a discussion happening in another thread with Bitemeusadoj.

Agreed opti; either way, no action was declared before anything began, so points wouldn't be kept as a loss.

I (and most) think the situation is pretty clear cut, but it could be made even clearer with standard terms for loans and wagers, acknowledged by both parties. Both parties agreeing to that would cover everything from when slow pay or stiff status applies, penalties, and who arbitrates in the event of a dispute. I have something like that in the works, and hopefully I'll have it out by the end of the week for people to look over and weigh in on.

[Optional]

Good to know! Without knowing the full details which might lead me to a different conclusion, I'd say that the book has the right to do whatever they claimed they can do and to which the better willingly agreed when they joined. If they said "we reserve the right to seize funds of players who commit certain acts", and those conditions were made apparent to the player who still wished to play at that book, then all they should have to do is prove it and be completely justified in taking the actions both parties agreed to. That does raise the question of who they prove it to of course; proving it to SBR works in those cases, and if the proof is sufficient, I'd hope SBR would support the agreement made and allow the book to take the actions they stipulated. Again, don't know all the details, so could be way off.

If the book had a term that said they could confiscate money for other books and a regulator backed them up in enforcing that term, yes SBR would have to respect the decision. But the only way a regulated book could make a term like that fly is if they nominated the other books first and they are always (I think) sister books or in the case of white labels, any other book using the same back end.

This is a CR book without a specific term and no regulator though.

They feel exactly as you do. It's clear cut this player is a scammer and so they don't want to pay him.

They have been asked to justify the amount they think he owes but have not.

They have been asked for proof. Simple proof that they should be able to supply. But have not done so.


It's very much like the issue right here. I think the book really thinks this guy deserves to have his balance confiscated, mostly as they think he's a first class douche for the trouble caused and say openly they dont like the guy.

But it's obvious they are either only guessing this is the right villian, or aren't even close enough to this other book to know the details of what happened. So for me, they should pull their head in and hand over what is his.

[Triple_D_Bet]

If the book had a term that said they could confiscate money for other books and a regulator backed them up in enforcing that term, yes SBR would have to respect the decision. But the only way a regulated book could make a term like that fly is if they nominated the other books first and they are always (I think) sister books or in the case of white labels, any other book using the same back end.

This is a CR book without a specific term and no regulator though.

They feel exactly as you do. It's clear cut this player is a scammer and so they don't want to pay him.

They have been asked to justify the amount they think he owes but have not.

They have been asked for proof. Simple proof that they should be able to supply. But have not done so.


It's very much like the issue right here. I think the book really thinks this guy deserves to have his balance confiscated, mostly as they think he's a first class douche for the trouble caused and say openly they dont like the guy.

But it's obvious they are either only guessing this is the right villian, or aren't even close enough to this other book to know the details of what happened. So for me, they should pull their head in and hand over what is his.

In that case, I agree with you and SBR: if they can't prove their allegations, they don't have a leg to stand on and should pay the guy out the same as anyone else. "Knowing" he's a scammer isn't good enough; if you can't prove it, you lose a lot of credibility trying to do something.

This situation is the opposite though: I've "known" bobbo was an unsavory character for years, from his past angle-shooting, refusal to pay Jay back one point he owed him, and generally changing his mind and ethics to whatever benefits him. Despite that, I never banned him from my contests, as there wasn't sufficiently clear proof for any of these (Jay's situation was very clear what should have happened ethically, but that was bobbo just being a hypocrite; it wasn't a violation of clear terms, and it was only one point). He clearly stiffed DS, over which there is no reasonable doubt, and I made it clear he wasn't welcome in contests back in July.

As you say, loans and stiffs as they currently stand can sometimes be ambiguous....this isn't one of those times.

[franklee168]

For Opti to state he didn't want to be involved in these types of situations, sure does seem to have a lot of involvement. Weird. Maybe I misread from earlier posts.

[JBiddyJ23]

For Opti to state he didn't want to be involved in these types of situations, sure does seem to have a lot of involvement. Weird. Maybe I misread from earlier posts.

I think Opti had to get involved. Opti let the situation go as far as he could. In my opinion!

[Triple_D_Bet]

For Opti to state he didn't want to be involved in these types of situations, sure does seem to have a lot of involvement. Weird. Maybe I misread from earlier posts.

He's not involved in an official capacity, just giving his opinion as a poster.

[bobbywaves]

Tripe keeps mentioning I stiffed Jayvegas for 1 pt, so ignorant & ludicrous. Tripe was told numerous times & can even check Jay's "team on the left" thread, Jay paid the extra pt to cover interest for paying me so late.

As far as the 72k DS bet, it's beyond obvious he broke my no loan term. We even have an outsider in Mr. Mayberry weighing in, confirming this obvious loan. I was willing to post up our bet, then the decision would be in Mr. Yisman's hands. Unfortunately for DS, he obviously couldn't afford 72k post up after loaning 100k to circumvent our bet. Apparently DS didn't think this through, why not borrow another 72k to secure his bet with Yisman post up?

By not posting up, DS forced me to decide on what to do about breaking my no loan condition. This was obviously a no brainer decision. How did DS ignorantly think he was getting paid, by breaking my no loan condition? Keep in mind I had 3 other wagers with DS prior to this. we both paid up with no issues. Why didn't I stiff DS earlier, when I had multiple opportunities to do so? Why don't I have any instances of stiffing, in the 8+ years I've been here?

Tripe is a blatant thief for stealing my 675 post up. If he didn't want my action, that's his right. It's obviously not his right, to not refund my post up. Nowhere in Tripe's original post does it say certain posters are excluded from participating. Tripe is so lazy & inconsiderate, he doesn't even include a link to his rules. Since I'm obviously not a stiff, I wasn't concerned with looking up Tripe's rules. Just like nobody else looked up his rules.

[trytrytry]

bobby who actually won the side bet. or was it called off by both and agreed by both to be called off?

I assume one of the two parties did actually meet the terms of the side bet, was it first to earn 100,000 with no loans? or something like that? who actually won and was it paid?

[Triple_D_Bet]

Tripe keeps mentioning I stiffed Jayvegas for 1 pt, so ignorant & ludicrous. Tripe was told numerous times & can even check Jay's "team on the left" thread, Jay paid the extra pt to cover interest for paying me so late.

As far as the 72k DS bet, it's beyond obvious he broke my no loan term. We even have an outsider in Mr. Mayberry weighing in, confirming this obvious loan. I was willing to post up our bet, then the decision would be in Mr. Yisman's hands. Unfortunately for DS, he obviously couldn't afford 72k post up after loaning 100k to circumvent our bet. Apparently DS didn't think this through, why not borrow another 72k to secure his bet with Yisman post up?

By not posting up, DS forced me to decide on what to do about breaking my no loan condition. This was obviously a no brainer decision. How did DS ignorantly think he was getting paid, by breaking my no loan condition? Keep in mind I had 3 other wagers with DS prior to this. we both paid up with no issues. Why didn't I stiff DS earlier, when I had multiple opportunities to do so? Why don't I have any instances of stiffing, in the 8+ years I've been here?

Tripe is a blatant thief for stealing my 675 post up. If he didn't want my action, that's his right. It's obviously not his right, to not refund my post up. Nowhere in Tripe's original post does it say certain posters are excluded from participating. Tripe is so lazy & inconsiderate, he doesn't even include a link to his rules. Since I'm obviously not a stiff, I wasn't concerned with looking up Tripe's rules. Just like nobody else looked up his rules.

Purpose of this thread isn't to debate you being a stiff; that was proven pretty thoroughly in DS' thread (and Jay's to a lesser but definitely unethical degree). You knew I considered you a stiff and entered anyways; you were too lazy to look up my standard loan terms since you couldn't remember them. I understand you're not happy about the effects of your ignorance, but nothing has actually changed for you: your "net points worth" (current balance minus what you owe DS) is still the same, you've just taken a tiny step in the right direction, albeit kicking and screaming.

[Triple_D_Bet]

bobby who actually won the side bet. or was it called off by both and agreed by both to be called off?

I assume one of the two parties did actually meet the terms of the side bet, was it first to earn 100,000 with no loans? or something like that? who actually won and was it paid?

Try, facts are laid out here: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post25363809

Would be interested to get your take on it.

[trytrytry]

Try, facts are laid out here: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post25363809

Would be interested to get your take on it.

im pretty sure bobbywaves won this side bet, and should be calling the person who did pay him the stiff, not sure why he is not doing that. while not a popular poster did he not reach 100,000 first? did anyone actually chart the real winner here?

i dont see anyplace where both parties agreed to cancel this. the loan trickery did not give a winner as per the rules.

(the loan trickery is not relevant other than to get bobby off his game and not generate points fast enough?)

on top of that you own him 673 or whatever it was as you did clearly cancel his action in your points gambling thread. (that was not a contest thread so your claimed contest rules which were not anywhere to be found anyway dont count ).

[Triple_D_Bet]

im pretty sure bobbywaves won this side bet, and should be calling the person who did pay him the stiff, not sure why he is not doing that. while not a popular poster did he not reach 100,000 first? did anyone actually chart the real winner here?

i dont see anyplace where both parties agreed to cancel this. the loan trickery did not give a winner as per the rules.

(the loan trickery is not relevant other than to get bobby off his game and not generate points fast enough?)

the wager was that bobbo would reach 100k before tatddy; tat reached 100k first...

BA9B3A

2/27/2016 4:52 PM

downsouth gave tatddy 5000 Betpoint(s) for this post.

downsouth

tatddy

Post Point

+5,000 [COLOR=#000000 !important]103,084.00 [/COLOR]

(bobbo never reach 100k)


...causing bobbo to lose. Bobbo refused to pay, insisting the points DS gave was a loan (despite DS explicitly saying it was a gift, no payback was expected and it was unsolicited).

Nowhere did both parties agree to cancel the wager.

[bobbywaves]

bobby who actually won the side bet. or was it called off by both and agreed by both to be called off?

I assume one of the two parties did actually meet the terms of the side bet, was it first to earn 100,000 with no loans? or something like that? who actually won and was it paid?

Correct, it was the first to earn 100k between myself & tatddy. Bet offer ended when DS circumvented our bet with a 100k loan to Tatddy, claiming he won bet via a "gift." I never offered some absurd gift giving contest. Another problem for DS, Tatddy returned his 100k gift. Why would Tat return DS's gift? Because it wasn't a gift, it was loan disguised as a gift to circumvent our bet.

[trytrytry]

the loan trickery is not relevant other than it might have like a smoke screen get bobby off his game in not not generating points. so clever in that manner I guess if that worked.

who actually under the rules got to 100,000 first is the real question.

i know bobby is not popular, I prefer you to bobby maybe tens time more triple. bobby has issues and that 19th hole thing is sketchy. And I hear on the poker tables he is sketchy. and this and that..

but

Im pretty sure ive seen bobby with more than 100,000 but not positive.

tatddy no doubt a great gambler might have eventually reached that but I dont think he worked hard enough to get there.


and on top of that you owe bobby the 673 or whatever it is after canceling his action in your sports gambling thread.

[trytrytry]

Correct, it was the first to earn 100k between myself & tatddy. Bet offer ended when DS circumvented our bet with a 100k loan to Tatddy, claiming he won bet via a "gift." I never offered some absurd gift giving contest. Another problem for DS, Tatddy returned his 100k gift. Why would Tat return DS's gift? Because it wasn't a gift, it was loan disguised as a gift to circumvent our bet.

did both parties agree to cancel it? where exactly did you cancel it? do you have that post thread handy?

did either poster ever show they had 100,000 under the terms of how to earn them? maybe this is still live!

the loan trickery move is not relevant to the winner of this sidebet.

[bobbywaves]

did both parties agree to cancel it? where exactly did you cancel it? do you have that post thread handy?

did either poster ever show they had 100,000 under the terms of how to earn them? maybe this is still live!

the loan trickery move is not relevant to the winner of this sidebet.

When someone cheats by breaking my no loan term, my bet offer is automatically cancelled by default. Bet was also over in DS mind, since he ignorantly claimed he won. It was suppose to be a race between me & Tat to 100k, but Tat was never involved in my bet with DS. Tat was basically used as a pawn by DS, to try & circumvent our bet.

The bet is not live, it died the day DS broke my no loan term.

[bobbywaves]

the loan trickery is not relevant other than it might have like a smoke screen get bobby off his game in not not generating points. so clever in that manner I guess if that worked.

It's obviously relevant, as DS broke my no loan condition.

who actually under the rules got to 100,000 first is the real question.

Nobody got to 100k via the rules.

i know bobby is not popular, I prefer you to bobby maybe tens time more triple. bobby has issues and that 19th hole thing is sketchy. And I hear on the poker tables he is sketchy. and this and that..

I'm not here for cyber friends, I have enough real friends. People don't like winners, misery loves company. Please provide your proof of me being "sketchy" at 18th hole & on the poker tables, I've never seen you once on an SBR poker table. That's hearsay, you believe everything you hear? Since I have "issues," you can stop addressing me with your questions that have been answered multiple times.

Im pretty sure ive seen bobby with more than 100,000 but not positive.

No you haven't, my high point was approx. 94k.

tatddy no doubt a great gambler might have eventually reached that but I dont think he worked hard enough to get there.

Tat didn't work to get there, that's the whole point.

and on top of that you owe bobby the 673 or whatever it is after canceling his action in your sports gambling thread.

Correct, the only intelligent point you made.

[Triple_D_Bet]

the loan trickery is not relevant other than it might have like a smoke screen get bobby off his game in not not generating points. so clever in that manner I guess if that worked.

who actually under the rules got to 100,000 first is the real question.

i know bobby is not popular, I prefer you to bobby maybe tens time more triple. bobby has issues and that 19th hole thing is sketchy. And I hear on the poker tables he is sketchy. and this and that..

but

Im pretty sure ive seen bobby with more than 100,000 but not positive.

tatddy no doubt a great gambler might have eventually reached that but I dont think he worked hard enough to get there.


and on top of that you owe bobby the 673 or whatever it is after canceling his action in your sports gambling thread.

There was no loan trickery; DS gave a gift, which was not expected back. When he explicitly states it's a gift, what else can you call it? That's the same as bobbo saying he sent me the points for bets and I call them a gift; that wouldn't make any sense right? So why would DS' gift be anything other than what he declared it to be?

There were no conditions under which bobbo and tat had to reach the 100k except that they couldn't solicit loans; the entirety of the wager's restrictions are here:

...Tat already lost a 100k challenge. He couldn't sniff 10k, let alone 100k. I'll bet your 72k I reach 100k before him, neither of us can solicit any loans to get there. ...

No restriction except that loans can't be solicited. Per that clause, a loan is even allowed, it just can't be solicited (which nobody has ever shown that tat solicited any loans for this). So even if you somehow call DS' explicit gift a loan, it's not prohibited by bobbo's terms of the wager, since he only specified 'no soliciting'.

The bet itself wasn't offered as a contest where both contestants had an equal chance: bobbo had 92k, tat had 6k, and bobbo was betting he'd reach 100k before tat. Unfortunately for bobbo, he forgot to stipulate "no gifts" as well as no loans, and DS was able to win the bet by adhering to the rules. There was no 'spirit' of the bet to violate, one never existed (betting you'll make 8k points before somoene else makes 94k is far from a reasonable bet)...but DS won it by the terms it was offered under, fair and square. There wasn't any attempt to throw bobbo off his game; the bet was won when tat reached 100k points.

I don't believe bobbo has ever been above 100k points...not 100% on that, but he certainly wasn't at 100k before tat was and DS won the bet.

As mentioned before, his 675 post up was sent to those he owed, in accordance with my standard policy (it's probably why stiffs usually stay away from my contests). Future stiffs will be treated the same way.

Bobbo made a wager for which he considered himself an astronomical favorite, but he wasn't smart enough to put restrictions on it so his intentions of offering a shitty bet matched up with what he actually offered. As a result, he was caught with his pants down and lost the wager. He then refused to pay; nothing to call that but a stiff job.

[downsouth]

the loan trickery is not relevant other than it might have like a smoke screen get bobby off his game in not not generating points. so clever in that manner I guess if that worked.

who actually under the rules got to 100,000 first is the real question.

i know bobby is not popular, I prefer you to bobby maybe tens time more triple. bobby has issues and that 19th hole thing is sketchy. And I hear on the poker tables he is sketchy. and this and that..

but

Im pretty sure ive seen bobby with more than 100,000 but not positive.

tatddy no doubt a great gambler might have eventually reached that but I dont think he worked hard enough to get there.


and on top of that you owe bobby the 673 or whatever it is after canceling his action in your sports gambling thread.

THe bet was first to 100k points and no loans. I was(and did) more than willing to give Tat the neccesary points to reach 100k as a gift.

The intention Bobby had, of course not, Bobbys offer was first to 100k when he had 90k and Tat had maybe 5k. But I was easily more than willing to give Tat 100k just for the entertainment of beating the forum big mouth.

After Tat saw that Bobby was going to stiff me he decided to give the points back, was not requested and would not have mattered anyway. Tat is a friend of mine both on and off the forums.

Here is verbatim what he said
Tat already lost a 100k challenge. He couldn't sniff 10k, let alone 100k. I'll bet your 72k I reach 100k before him, neither of us can solicit any loans to get there.

Tat did not solicit a loan, the points I sent him were not a loan. I actually told him to cash them out and get something nice from amazon. Was it a loophole, sure, lots of loopholes used in this world. Your an advantage gambler from what Ive been told, most I know have hit a "loophole" a time or two.

My thought process was I send Tat 95k or whatever it is/was, Bobby loses 72k, 25k points or so was a small price to pay for the quality entertainment.

So I asks you what "loan trickery"

[bobbywaves]

So why would DS' gift be anything other than what he declared it to be?

Simple..Because Tat doesn't have the 100k, he gave the 100k back to DS. It's considered rude behavior to return gifts. Why would Tat decline DS's very kind gesture, when a 100k gift is unprecedented & unheard of? Because it wasn't a gift, it was an obvious loan in a lame attempt to circumvent our bet.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Simple..Because Tat doesn't have the 100k, he gave the 100k back to DS. It's considered rude behavior to return gifts. Why would Tat decline DS's very kind gesture, when a 100k gift is unprecedented & unheard of? Because it wasn't a gift, it was an obvious loan in a lame attempt to circumvent our bet.

DS called it a gift, and him giving it back had nothing to do with your decision, since you decided to stiff before tat gave it back

Even if it was a loan, re-read your wager terms, and you see loans aren't banned:

...Tat already lost a 100k challenge. He couldn't sniff 10k, let alone 100k. I'll bet your 72k I reach 100k before him, neither of us can solicit any loans to get there. ...

Neither of you solicited loans to get there, terms are met...even if it was a loan, as long as tat didn't solicit it, he's compliant with the terms. Since nobody has shown he did solicit anything, DS would win the bet even if what you claimed was true.

Since you insist on discussing it, glad we've settled it once and for all, with your own words. Stiffs always have some excuse for why they can't or won't pay, and you're no different until you pay what you owe.

[downsouth]

Simple..Because Tat doesn't have the 100k, he gave the 100k back to DS. It's considered rude behavior to return gifts. Why would Tat decline DS's very kind gesture, when a 100k gift is unprecedented & unheard of? Because it wasn't a gift, it was an obvious loan in a lame attempt to circumvent our bet.

Post of 72k with TryTry and I will again give Tat 100k. He will keep the 100k and Ill take your 72K.

[trytrytry]

THe bet was first to 100k points and no loans. I was(and did) more than willing to give Tat the neccesary points to reach 100k as a gift.

The intention Bobby had, of course not, Bobbys offer was first to 100k when he had 90k and Tat had maybe 5k. But I was easily more than willing to give Tat 100k just for the entertainment of beating the forum big mouth.

After Tat saw that Bobby was going to stiff me he decided to give the points back, was not requested and would not have mattered anyway. Tat is a friend of mine both on and off the forums.

Here is verbatim what he said
Tat already lost a 100k challenge. He couldn't sniff 10k, let alone 100k. I'll bet your 72k I reach 100k before him, neither of us can solicit any loans to get there.

Tat did not solicit a loan, the points I sent him were not a loan. I actually told him to cash them out and get something nice from amazon. Was it a loophole, sure, lots of loopholes used in this world. Your an advantage gambler from what Ive been told, most I know have hit a "loophole" a time or two.

My thought process was I send Tat 95k or whatever it is/was, Bobby loses 72k, 25k points or so was a small price to pay for the quality entertainment.

So I asks you what "loan trickery"

loan trickery is the loan you gave tat as you state above.
as in you gave him a loan of 100,000


the clever workaround would have been this u should have wagered him in public that the sun will come up tomorrow at 100000 -1 maybe that could hold up as in taddy earned a side bet? not sure if side bets were banned or not to earn the points.



but the straight loan is clear. for god sakes he sent it back! Dah!!

[downsouth]

loan trickery is the loan you gave tat as you state above.
as in you gave him a loan of 100,000


the clever workaround would have been this u should have wagered him in public that the sun will come up tomorrow at 100000 -1 maybe that could hold up as in taddy earned a side bet? not sure if side bets were banned or not to earn the points.



but the straight loan is clear. for god sakes he sent it back! Dah!!

He sent it back weeks later when he realized Bobby was stiffing me. Had Bobby have paid his lost bet those points would have never been sent back. Tat texted me he was sending back and I actually told him no need.

Had Bobby had paid losing bet and then Tat sent back you could make the case but since Bobby stiffed he would not accept my gift.