1. #211
    brainfreeze
    Meaning
    brainfreeze's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-13-14
    Posts: 5,467
    Betpoints: 246

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple_D_Bet View Post
    Freezer, not even two months ago bobbo was well aware that my contests were not open to him:

    http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...l#post25947724

    There was no ambiguity at all, and my contests are never open to stiffs.

    Bobbo's not accepting any sane poker challenges, but that's neither here nor there.
    Yea, I get that... and I think so does try, but not letting him play is one thing and is at your discretion but to take someone's points and disperse of them how you see fit is arguable .. and that's where it gets a little funky. I just think it's a better idea for the integrity of the forum in the long run that you just let him go there...try is a unbiased party, and we should listen, think it would be wise ... Don't let this guy that acts like an idiot make people uncomfortable about their points because someone might say to themselves " so and so thinks I scammed him, and triple might give my points away " it's just not a good look...

  2. #212
    bobbywaves
    bobbywaves's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-06-08
    Posts: 13,278
    Betpoints: 960

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple_D_Bet View Post
    Bobbo's not accepting any sane poker challenges, but that's neither here nor there.
    Really? Then how did I take you for 29k in our poker bet, if I'm not accepting any "sane poker challenges?" How did I recently win 500 from Astro in our poker players championship bet, when I don't accept sane poker challenges?

    Could this be another lie from Tripe, considering my supported evidence above?

    Or is Tripe trying to get me on a loophole here, admitting Astro's 500 loss & Tripe's 29k loss to me were actually "insane" bets I accepted?

    What will it be Tripe?

    Quote Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
    I know right, every time he types, it's like he can't help but bury himself deeper...
    Yeah, kind of like how I just buried Tripe above.
    Last edited by bobbywaves; 08-22-16 at 11:18 PM.

  3. #213
    SharpAngles
    SharpAngles's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-15-14
    Posts: 9,467
    Betpoints: 1638

    Quote Originally Posted by trytrytry View Post
    you are on my great list as well

    lets say this happened.

    SBR graded a game wrong for 1 second, a human error but it happened. SBR corrected it and took the points back 1 second later (ie an unsolicited gift) for that second bobby was over 100,000.

    who wins the side bet? yea um... didnt think so. if downsouth did not pay that can you see triple sending bobby points from his poker contest. LOL. and yet triple for some reason will steal from a SBR PRO points and send them to downsouth in a situation there was a loan and pay back loan transfer. if they did it for 1 second was that long enough? incredible.
    A person like booby would no doubt use this angle to win the bet, just like he would take DS's 72k if the gift came to him instead, but 2 gentlemen would agree to keep the wager going. Fortunately for DS there was no error beyond Bobo failing to specify proper terms so he won the bet fair and square in my eyes. Don't prop bet if you can't handle losing bottom line.

  4. #214
    Jayvegas420
    Vegas Baby!
    Jayvegas420's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-09-11
    Posts: 28,143
    Betpoints: 15015

    I still can't believe Bobby posted up the points in this thread. I laugh everytime I think of him clicking the transfer button, and then realizing holy shit, I'm never going to get any of these points back.
    Try try try, have loved you since I joined this site but you are being very thick about this. You are trying to argue the semantics of this. If down south called it a gift what gives you the right to call it a loan? It's been explained to you several times that a loan was not solicited. The points were gifted.
    Who says you can't return a gift? Just because points are so precious to Bobby and he would never give back one point ( let alone 100k) that doesnt mean that a member cant return a gift.

    Alot of the analogies in this thread have been stretches & more to the point, irrelevant.
    The bookie comparison was rediculous too., if a book tells you don't bet with us anymore and your action is not welcomed here & deposits will not be refunded...what kind of an idiot deposits money to that book?
    A special kind of idot!
    Bob made a bet that he would reach 100k points before tatdy. He didn't, he lost, he wouldn't pay... simple.

    Bobby admitted in my team on the left thread, that he was angle shooting.
    He angle shoots and brags about it. He was angle shot in the 72k bet and then decided that hed just freeroll.

    He scammed me for a single point in my thread and still has yet to provide a post # where i said that overpayments was for interest.
    There is no post. I wouldn't/didnt do that. He refused to pay for years and the interest ( per our agreement) grew to the billions. He thought it was a joke.

    Just like he cant provide a post number to prove that he and trip agreed to cancel the 72k bet.

    I am sorry optional and try try try but I didn't see you two getting involved when Bobby scammed me out of points or when he scammed down south of the 72,000 points. If you didn't want to help resolve the 72000 point issue why are you in here trying to resolve a 600 point issue?

    Im definitely out of my lane here but, is enough. Tripe is trying to do the right thing here. Bobby is an undesireable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though thats irrelevent to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss.

  5. #215
    Triple_D_Bet
    Triple_D_Bet's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-12-11
    Posts: 7,626
    Betpoints: 219

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire in da hole View Post
    I also have a suggestion to end this debate once and for all AND do it for a good cause.

    I believe DS was willing to gift the pts, so he would've lost 28k net. If Bobby honored the bet, he would've lost 72k.

    72/28=2.57142 Bobby would've lost 2.5714 points to every 1 point DS lost.

    Bobby currently has 18,815 pts, which using the ratio above would mean DS would need to kick in 7,317 pts. DS currently has 9,988. Why doesn't both players send the points to Trytrytry and have him donate them to angelman?

    We can argue about this for years, but I've yet to see someone come up with an alternative solution to try to resolve it now, other than the entire 72k which bobby doesn't have.
    Hrm...that's a pretty novel solution, hadn't thought of anything like that! DS holds the debt, it's up to him to waive some or all of it...but doing so in the manner you've described would certainly be a nice gesture

    Quote Originally Posted by brainfreeze View Post
    Yea, I get that... and I think so does try, but not letting him play is one thing and is at your discretion but to take someone's points and disperse of them how you see fit is arguable .. and that's where it gets a little funky. I just think it's a better idea for the integrity of the forum in the long run that you just let him go there...try is a unbiased party, and we should listen, think it would be wise ... Don't let this guy that acts like an idiot make people uncomfortable about their points because someone might say to themselves " so and so thinks I scammed him, and triple might give my points away " it's just not a good look...
    A key point: I stipulate the points aren't to be used how i see fit, but that they're sent to the person the stiff owes. I don't think this is gonna scare away anyone from participating unless they've been labeled a stiff, in which case I'd argue that we don't want them participating in the forum anyways (and keeping stiffs away from those activities is arguably more important to the forums reputation). If anyone has any doubt on whether or not they're a stiff to be treated as such under my terms, they're welcome to contact me first to be sure....but I doubt that's an issue either, stiffs almost always know who they are.

    I won't claim that I think everyone should be forced to not do business with stiffs; I'm simply stating I won't, and any trying to will find their points where they belong: sent to the person they're stiffing.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbywaves View Post
    Really? Then how did I take you for 29k in our poker bet, if I'm not accepting any "sane poker challenges?" How did I recently win 500 from Astro in our poker players championship bet, when I don't accept sane poker challenges?

    Could this be another lie from Tripe, considering my supported evidence above?

    Or is Tripe trying to get me on a loophole here, admitting Astro's 500 loss & Tripe's 29k loss to me were actually "insane" bets I accepted?

    What will it be Tripe?



    Yeah, kind of like how I just buried Tripe above.
    You've been proven wrong on this too many times to count, no desire to do it for the umpteenth time

    Quote Originally Posted by SharpAngles View Post
    A person like booby would no doubt use this angle to win the bet, just like he would take DS's 72k if the gift came to him instead, but 2 gentlemen would agree to keep the wager going. Fortunately for DS there was no error beyond Bobo failing to specify proper terms so he won the bet fair and square in my eyes. Don't prop bet if you can't handle losing bottom line.
    I wouldn't take action based on even a likely-accurate assumption, but yes, bobbo's history shows that his sense of ethics is very 'flexible'. He was always honorable enough on the little stuff, but anything more than a couple hundred points or so, or when he's trying to spite someone else or is being proven wrong, and his sense of right and wrong becomes "whatever he thinks he can get away with". A large amount like 72k? Never a chance he'd pay it, even when caught dead to rights in plain English.

  6. #216
    Triple_D_Bet
    Triple_D_Bet's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-12-11
    Posts: 7,626
    Betpoints: 219

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayvegas420 View Post
    I still can't believe Bobby posted up the points in this thread. I laugh everytime I think of him clicking the transfer button, and then realizing holy shit, I'm never going to get any of these points back.
    Try try try, have loved you since I joined this site but you are being very thick about this. You are trying to argue the semantics of this. If down south called it a gift what gives you the right to call it a loan? It's been explained to you several times that a loan was not solicited. The points were gifted.
    Who says you can't return a gift? Just because points are so precious to Bobby and he would never give back one point ( let alone 100k) that doesnt mean that a member cant return a gift.

    Alot of the analogies in this thread have been stretches & more to the point, irrelevant.
    The bookie comparison was rediculous too., if a book tells you don't bet with us anymore and your action is not welcomed here & deposits will not be refunded...what kind of an idiot deposits money to that book?
    A special kind of idot!
    Bob made a bet that he would reach 100k points before tatdy. He didn't, he lost, he wouldn't pay... simple.

    Bobby admitted in my team on the left thread, that he was angle shooting.
    He angle shoots and brags about it. He was angle shot in the 72k bet and then decided that hed just freeroll.

    He scammed me for a single point in my thread and still has yet to provide a post # where i said that overpayments was for interest.
    There is no post. I wouldn't/didnt do that. He refused to pay for years and the interest ( per our agreement) grew to the billions. He thought it was a joke.

    Just like he cant provide a post number to prove that he and trip agreed to cancel the 72k bet.

    I am sorry optional and try try try but I didn't see you two getting involved when Bobby scammed me out of points or when he scammed down south of the 72,000 points. If you didn't want to help resolve the 72000 point issue why are you in here trying to resolve a 600 point issue?

    Im definitely out of my lane here but, is enough. Tripe is trying to do the right thing here. Bobby is an undesireable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though thats irrelevent to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss.

    I did send you back the point he owed you since it was prior to DS. Despite his hypocrisy in claiming 10% daily juice on the interest and then changing his mind when he discovered he was the one he owed, that's not clear enough to say he owes you the ungodly amount of points that comes out to. A gentleman would have admitted he was wrong and sent your point back with a bunch more and an apology, but the bare minimum of ethics would have required sending at least the 1 point, so that's what I did for him. His self-burial in the matter will be the only interest you'll see, but that's probably worth more than a couple points anyways

  7. #217
    bobbywaves
    bobbywaves's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-06-08
    Posts: 13,278
    Betpoints: 960

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayvegas420 View Post
    Just like he cant provide a post number to prove that he and trip agreed to cancel the 72k bet.
    Tripe & I never had a 72k bet, so how could we agree to cancel a bet that never existed? Moreover, how can I provide a post # for a 72k bet between Tripe & I that never existed? Moron.

  8. #218
    Jayvegas420
    Vegas Baby!
    Jayvegas420's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-09-11
    Posts: 28,143
    Betpoints: 15015

    Provide the post where DS said the bet was void or cancelled.

  9. #219
    bobbywaves
    bobbywaves's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-06-08
    Posts: 13,278
    Betpoints: 960

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayvegas420 View Post
    Provide the post where DS said the bet was void or cancelled.
    Sure, when DS ignorantly posted this: Bet Accepted. The points I sent to Tat are a...

    Since Tat returned the 100k pts, it clearly wasn't a "gift" as DS ignorantly stated. Pts are sent back for loans, not for gifts. The bet was void when DS blatantly violated my no loan condition, in a lame attempt to circumvent our wager.

  10. #220
    Jayvegas420
    Vegas Baby!
    Jayvegas420's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-09-11
    Posts: 28,143
    Betpoints: 15015

    I read your link bob.
    I didnt read where DS called it a loan.
    I didnt read where he said "bet is cancelled or voided"
    Tat returned a gift. Hes entitled to do that.
    Youre the only one who has called the gift a loan. Like i said, just beause you ( the bet loser) says its a loan, DOES NOT MAKE IT A LOAN.
    It was termed a gift, it was not required to be returned or repaid, therefore it was a gift. The person administering the gift called it a gift, the person receiving the gift called it a gift. You are the only one calling it a loan and you are doing this in a feeble attempt to avoid paying a bet that you lost.

  11. #221
    ArunSh
    ArunSh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-24-07
    Posts: 6,748
    Betpoints: 51409

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbywaves View Post
    Sure, when DS ignorantly posted this: Bet Accepted. The points I sent to Tat are a...

    Since Tat returned the 100k pts, it clearly wasn't a "gift" as DS ignorantly stated. Pts are sent back for loans, not for gifts. The bet was void when DS blatantly violated my no loan condition, in a lame attempt to circumvent our wager.

    I really loathe the idea of jumping into this nonsense, but the way half the threads on this forum have now degenerated into debates about this (sigh), I guess someone who is a frequent reader of this site might as well express his views.

    Bobbywaves: I have to say the position you have taken on this recently (in the above statement) really doesn't make sense to me for a couple reasons:

    (1) You keep claiming that what downsouth sent to tatddy was a loan not a gift which voided the bet since loans were against the stated conditions. However, as can be seen in the timing of the posts, you clearly stated long before tatddy sent the points back to downsouth that you weren't going to pay off the bet since, in your view, that wasn't the intent of the bet. Since you clearly could not construe at that point that what downsouth sent was a loan not a gift (you keep saying that tatddy sending them back is proof that it was a gift), how does that position make sense since you went on record stating that you weren't going to pay off long before tatddy ever sent the points back?

    (2) Let us assume hypothetically that tatddy had never sent the points back to downsouth. Since your argument continues to be that him sending them back proves it was a loan not a gift, are we to assume that if the points had never been sent back that you would be agreeing that you did lose the bet + owe downsouth the 72k (perhaps you would have already paid it even!)? I think everyone reading this (yourself included) would immediately agree that of course you still would never have paid the bet off even if the points had never been sent back. So again, why do you keep using that as a justification for the bet being void when it's obvious to everyone that you still would not have paid off if tatddy had never sent the points back?


    If you want to make the argument that what downsouth did was clearly not in the spirit/intent of the bet you proposed, fine. This sorta reminds me of the Judge Judy episode where a woman on ebay put two cellphones up for sale, but stated in the auction that the sale was just for "photos" of the two phones, basically trying to scam someone out of ~$400. And then when she was sued, she said the auction listing clearly stated it was a sale for the photo only. By the exact letter of the law perhaps she was right, but the judge tore into her - obviously not viewing what she did to be in the spirit of what was intended and refunded the other party's money. Again if you wanted to claim on those types of grounds that the bet is void, fine. Some people would probably agree with you, others would not. But at least if you made that argument your position would be consistent - rather than continuing to argue that tatddy returning the points in some way voided the bet which doesn't really make sense for the reasons I mentioned above.

  12. #222
    Jayvegas420
    Vegas Baby!
    Jayvegas420's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-09-11
    Posts: 28,143
    Betpoints: 15015

    Good post arun.

    Bobby wont be able to read a post that long


    .....but good post anyway!

  13. #223
    Triple_D_Bet
    Triple_D_Bet's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-12-11
    Posts: 7,626
    Betpoints: 219

    Quote Originally Posted by ArunSh View Post
    I really loathe the idea of jumping into this nonsense, but the way half the threads on this forum have now degenerated into debates about this (sigh), I guess someone who is a frequent reader of this site might as well express his views.

    Bobbywaves: I have to say the position you have taken on this recently (in the above statement) really doesn't make sense to me for a couple reasons:

    (1) You keep claiming that what downsouth sent to tatddy was a loan not a gift which voided the bet since loans were against the stated conditions. However, as can be seen in the timing of the posts, you clearly stated long before tatddy sent the points back to downsouth that you weren't going to pay off the bet since, in your view, that wasn't the intent of the bet. Since you clearly could not construe at that point that what downsouth sent was a loan not a gift (you keep saying that tatddy sending them back is proof that it was a gift), how does that position make sense since you went on record stating that you weren't going to pay off long before tatddy ever sent the points back?

    (2) Let us assume hypothetically that tatddy had never sent the points back to downsouth. Since your argument continues to be that him sending them back proves it was a loan not a gift, are we to assume that if the points had never been sent back that you would be agreeing that you did lose the bet + owe downsouth the 72k (perhaps you would have already paid it even!)? I think everyone reading this (yourself included) would immediately agree that of course you still would never have paid the bet off even if the points had never been sent back. So again, why do you keep using that as a justification for the bet being void when it's obvious to everyone that you still would not have paid off if tatddy had never sent the points back?


    If you want to make the argument that what downsouth did was clearly not in the spirit/intent of the bet you proposed, fine. This sorta reminds me of the Judge Judy episode where a woman on ebay put two cellphones up for sale, but stated in the auction that the sale was just for "photos" of the two phones, basically trying to scam someone out of ~$400. And then when she was sued, she said the auction listing clearly stated it was a sale for the photo only. By the exact letter of the law perhaps she was right, but the judge tore into her - obviously not viewing what she did to be in the spirit of what was intended and refunded the other party's money. Again if you wanted to claim on those types of grounds that the bet is void, fine. Some people would probably agree with you, others would not. But at least if you made that argument your position would be consistent - rather than continuing to argue that tatddy returning the points in some way voided the bet which doesn't really make sense for the reasons I mentioned above.
    Solid post Arun...I'd say the analogy isn't quite right. A prop bet, by it's nature, is between parties who both think the other person is getting the worse deal, based on the information they have. In this case, the person offering the wager intended to make it so lopsided that it couldn't be won or even accepted, but he miscalculated and allowed it to be easily won. Prop betting doesn't have (and shouldn't have) safeguards to restrict betting to what someone else considers reasonable; what's considered a reasonable bet varies considerably, but giving the loser an option to dispute the terms of the wager as 'unfair' after the fact isn't reasonable.

    bobbo and DS both insist it was a valid wager which was accepted. DS clearly won it and complied with the described terms. There's simply no other conclusion to reach except "bobbo lost and is stiffing by refusing to pay".

    Don't blame ya for staying out of this for so long or for not replying, this stuff is often a useless mess, and not everyone has the free time (or should waste it on this crap either probably )

  14. #224
    Fire in da hole
    Fire in da hole's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-29-10
    Posts: 6,262
    Betpoints: 1120

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbywaves View Post

    Tripe & I never had a 72k bet, so how could we agree to cancel a bet that never existed? Moreover, how can I provide a post # for a 72k bet between Tripe & I that never existed? Moron.
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbywaves View Post

    Sure, when DS ignorantly posted this: Bet Accepted. The points I sent to Tat are a...

    Since Tat returned the 100k pts, it clearly wasn't a "gift" as DS ignorantly stated. Pts are sent back for loans, not for gifts. The bet was void when DS blatantly violated my no loan condition, in a lame attempt to circumvent our wager.
    Bobby, instead of heaving insults, why don't you worry about getting your own story straight. In less than 20 min you managed to completely contradict yourself by saying 1) The points given to Tat were to circumvent the rules and you won 2) You never had a bet or 3) the bet was voided

    Above, you are calling Jayvegas a moron because he says you cannot provide proof of canceling the bet. Your response to said argument is to call him a moron and say there was never a bet. You then proceed to post again saying that the bet was voided. In true Bobby fashion, you then proceed to the thread by aggieshawn's and say that tech DS owes you the pts.

    So, my response to you, how could DS owe you points when there never was a bet or how could he have broke the rules to a bet that according to you was never made final? Seems like you are the moron here..

    I do not understand why you constantly resort to insults like some immature second grader when responding to a valid point.

  15. #225
    trytrytry
    All I do is trytrytry
    trytrytry's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-13-06
    Posts: 23,498
    Betpoints: 273425

    I am sorry optional and try try try but I didn't see you two getting involved when Bobby scammed me out of points or when he scammed down south of the 72,000 points. If you didn't want to help resolve the 72000 point issue why are you in here trying to resolve a 600 point issue?

    Im definitely out of my lane here but, is enough. Tripe is trying to do the right thing here. Bobby is an undesirable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though that's irrelevant to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss.



    My reason is to get to a point eventually get a member sub form policy on wager threads (like the one Triple made, and yisman makes, I I make and many others where points are sent to a new owner). One important thing to agree on or define is Can a person here in this subforum who solicits wagers in a thread be the sole decision maker on returning, paying winners, keeping losers, freerolling or taking SBR PRO points from another?


    It will never be perfect but we can try as this is a special subforum here

    Literally millions of points transfer here, and on trust basis.

    If there are people offering wagers that can steal the points via their own policy which Triple did, he took them from an SBR PRO, did not return them well guess what Im actually fine with that!!

    Guys I would LOVE to have all decisions about wagers be in the hands of who offers them.

    One example Years ago I had the NASCAR sub group scream bloody murder on a wager that was made by an SBr PRO past post, I was returning points as clearly post post, even when the rules were clearly typed in the rules section and they were calling me a stiff/cheat for refunding a late past post wager, there must have been a dozen people claiming it was not my decision to use my rules it was theirs, and they would not stop, they would not let me make the decision in my own thread. They would still be screaming and I would be on the Triple list also due to just that if I had not returned the past post betpoints. Trust me Id love to use the TRIPLE model and have the sub forum agree that is the policy!! He is actually my hero right now. I just dont know if the sub forum community will agree to a high enough margin. But That would be AWESOME!!!


    Im playing this hard the other way to challenge the community a bit to get that defined. Then lets vote.

    The taker of all points is the sole and only decision maker on returning points or honoring wagers. yes or no

    Can we get a VOTE thread with those words, lets agree a simple majority or a super majority is needed to pass either way. run until football season. Don't show the vote tally until the end as to not influence voters? lets just do it! this would simplify everything, its a buyer beware for sending points period, no crying, no begging, no asking SBR for help, no teaming up to bash a person who made the decision. No nothing.



    Like Triple is doing here. He is like the Rosa Parks of the sub forum. He is stealing points via his own individual policy he really believes in. Its a good case for all future gambling point transfer transactions.


    this is a chance to get a feel for the community



    There are millions of point transactions and Triple has just stolen an SBR PROS points in an offer thread here. Lets at least vote that this is the agreed new policy and move on. There would never need to be any comments or questions in the future.

    If no points are sent, as in air side bets, we have no policy, this is only for wager threads, contest threads, points being sent in this subforum or in the few cases at other subforums where SBR Allows a bit of wagering (they dont like it at all in the main forum)

    If we agree it is not correct to call Triple a stiff for this or mention it or use it against him in any manner.
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: Fire in da hole

  16. #226
    SharpAngles
    SharpAngles's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-15-14
    Posts: 9,467
    Betpoints: 1638

    ^^ Big difference between theft and redistribution of debt

    Don't participate in a TDB contest if you're a stiff. If you do, any points will be distributed to your debtors. Seems pretty simple.

  17. #227
    trytrytry
    All I do is trytrytry
    trytrytry's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-13-06
    Posts: 23,498
    Betpoints: 273425

    Quote Originally Posted by SharpAngles View Post
    ^^ Big difference between theft and redistribution of debt

    Don't participate in a TDB contest if you're a stiff. If you do, any points will be distributed to your debtors. Seems pretty simple.
    lets keep the emotion out of it.

    lets call it not returning the points. (other words might be take, keep, redistribute, gift, donate, redistribute, steal, hold, sit on, move)



    exactly so you vote that any person taking points on wagers/contests in this forum can choose to not return the points to the SBR PRO based on rules they alone define. pretty simple.


    correct?

    if so its

    its 1-0 yes

    keep voting.

  18. #228
    Optional
    Optional's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date: 06-10-10
    Posts: 57,602
    Betpoints: 9216

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayvegas420 View Post
    I am sorry optional and try try try but I didn't see you two getting involved when Bobby scammed me out of points or when he scammed down south of the 72,000 points. If you didn't want to help resolve the 72000 point issue why are you in here trying to resolve a 600 point issue?

    Im definitely out of my lane here but, is enough. Tripe is trying to do the right thing here. Bobby is an undesireable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though thats irrelevent to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss.
    Hey! I just opened this can of worms. Was not trying to tell anyone how to solve it. ;-)

    "Bobby is an undesireable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though thats irrelevent to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss." <-- 100% normal reaction and imho the main reason we have so many people approving of this side show. But if you want a fair system, then that just can't come into the decision making.

  19. #229
    Triple_D_Bet
    Triple_D_Bet's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-12-11
    Posts: 7,626
    Betpoints: 219

    Quote Originally Posted by trytrytry View Post
    I am sorry optional and try try try but I didn't see you two getting involved when Bobby scammed me out of points or when he scammed down south of the 72,000 points. If you didn't want to help resolve the 72000 point issue why are you in here trying to resolve a 600 point issue?

    Im definitely out of my lane here but, is enough. Tripe is trying to do the right thing here. Bobby is an undesirable who IMO is bad for SBR. Even though that's irrelevant to some of you, I find it hard to dismiss.



    My reason is to get to a point eventually get a member sub form policy on wager threads (like the one Triple made, and yisman makes, I I make and many others where points are sent to a new owner). One important thing to agree on or define is Can a person here in this subforum who solicits wagers in a thread be the sole decision maker on returning, paying winners, keeping losers, freerolling or taking SBR PRO points from another?


    It will never be perfect but we can try as this is a special subforum here

    Literally millions of points transfer here, and on trust basis.

    If there are people offering wagers that can steal the points via their own policy which Triple did, he took them from an SBR PRO, did not return them well guess what Im actually fine with that!!

    Guys I would LOVE to have all decisions about wagers be in the hands of who offers them.

    One example Years ago I had the NASCAR sub group scream bloody murder on a wager that was made by an SBr PRO past post, I was returning points as clearly post post, even when the rules were clearly typed in the rules section and they were calling me a stiff/cheat for refunding a late past post wager, there must have been a dozen people claiming it was not my decision to use my rules it was theirs, and they would not stop, they would not let me make the decision in my own thread. They would still be screaming and I would be on the Triple list also due to just that if I had not returned the past post betpoints. Trust me Id love to use the TRIPLE model and have the sub forum agree that is the policy!! He is actually my hero right now. I just dont know if the sub forum community will agree to a high enough margin. But That would be AWESOME!!!


    Im playing this hard the other way to challenge the community a bit to get that defined. Then lets vote.

    The taker of all points is the sole and only decision maker on returning points or honoring wagers. yes or no

    Can we get a VOTE thread with those words, lets agree a simple majority or a super majority is needed to pass either way. run until football season. Don't show the vote tally until the end as to not influence voters? lets just do it! this would simplify everything, its a buyer beware for sending points period, no crying, no begging, no asking SBR for help, no teaming up to bash a person who made the decision. No nothing.



    Like Triple is doing here. He is like the Rosa Parks of the sub forum. He is stealing points via his own individual policy he really believes in. Its a good case for all future gambling point transfer transactions.


    this is a chance to get a feel for the community



    There are millions of point transactions and Triple has just stolen an SBR PROS points in an offer thread here. Lets at least vote that this is the agreed new policy and move on. There would never need to be any comments or questions in the future.

    If no points are sent, as in air side bets, we have no policy, this is only for wager threads, contest threads, points being sent in this subforum or in the few cases at other subforums where SBR Allows a bit of wagering (they dont like it at all in the main forum)

    If we agree it is not correct to call Triple a stiff for this or mention it or use it against him in any manner.
    Some interesting points try, and I mostly agree (obviously!). I would say the person taking action should by default have control over whether or not they want to take action from anyone, absolutely. I would expect that person taking action would adhere to standards though: you should be able to not take action from someone for any reason so long as it's stated before the action closes, but if doing something other than returning points, it should be procedurally covered by their terms (as you and I do with editing and stiffs for example).

    I can't see a need for many caveats, just for stiffs/slow-pays (working on those definitions as well) and maybe posters who have been shady in the past without stiffing. I'm working on updated standard terms for loans and wagering, should have it ready for review later today.

  20. #230
    ArunSh
    ArunSh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-24-07
    Posts: 6,748
    Betpoints: 51409

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple_D_Bet View Post
    Solid post Arun...I'd say the analogy isn't quite right. A prop bet, by it's nature, is between parties who both think the other person is getting the worse deal, based on the information they have. In this case, the person offering the wager intended to make it so lopsided that it couldn't be won or even accepted, but he miscalculated and allowed it to be easily won. Prop betting doesn't have (and shouldn't have) safeguards to restrict betting to what someone else considers reasonable; what's considered a reasonable bet varies considerably, but giving the loser an option to dispute the terms of the wager as 'unfair' after the fact isn't reasonable.

    bobbo and DS both insist it was a valid wager which was accepted. DS clearly won it and complied with the described terms. There's simply no other conclusion to reach except "bobbo lost and is stiffing by refusing to pay".

    Don't blame ya for staying out of this for so long or for not replying, this stuff is often a useless mess, and not everyone has the free time (or should waste it on this crap either probably )

    Fair point. I would agree that in the analogy I gave, the party who ended up getting "scammed" (or whatever you want to call it) was in a no-fault situation, they did nothing wrong. If Bobbywaves wants to claim the intent of his proposed bet was to who between him and tatddy would reach 100k first with him starting with 92k and tatddy with 8k, via earning it in some fashion (poker, casino, sports bets), a bet which he had no realistic way to lose, that doesn't exactly win him any accolades for ethics. As such, if you do that and someone manages to turn the tables on you, should not come as a surprise if you don't get a lot of sympathy.

    That said, the main issue to me is about "intent". Again, if bobby wanted to claim that his intent when he said no loans was to include no gifts as well, naturally only he can sure what his intent was. So if his defense was based on this not falling within his intent of what the bet was supposed to be, that to me at least would constitute a valid defense. Whether it would hold up in a court of law, no idea.

    But instead of arguing his own intent, he seems to be trying to serve as judge/jury as to what someone else's intent was (continually claiming that downsouth's intent was to give a loan not a gift). That, in addition to being inconsistent with the timeline of his own actions as I noted in my earlier post, doesn't strike me as a valid argument (again only the person in question can know their own intent).

    And unfortunately for him, even if he were to now change to the more valid defense, arguing his intent, his own actions would now put that in question. Since he again appointed himself as judge/jury as to what someone else's intent was, everyone else would have just as much right to do the same thing to him - to claim that bobby's "intent" was that only loans were disallowed, not gifts. Again that argument about his intent would be just as valid as his argument about downsouth's intent.
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: Triple_D_Bet

  21. #231
    bobbywaves
    bobbywaves's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-06-08
    Posts: 13,278
    Betpoints: 960

    Arunsh, who agrees to a gift giving contest? Just because I didn't state the obvious, no gifts? I don't state the obvious. I shouldn't have have even stated no loans, as that's just as obvious. I didn't think DS was an angle shooting douchebag, apparently I was wrong. Who ever agrees with what DS did, is a douchebag as well.

    Who "gifts" 100k? Why would the 100k gift be returned? I stated in original thread: "we'll see how much of a gift it was, when Tat returns the 100k." Obviously I was spot on, Tat returned the 100k to DS. Anyone with an IQ over 50, can clearly see DS circumvented the bet with a loan.

    Why didn't DS post up 72k with Yis to secure a huge bet like this? I would have agreed & done the same. Then the decision would be in Yisman's hands, not mine. DS needed to take a loan from dgnf, just to ship Tat the 100k loan. Apparently DS didn't want to solicit another 72k loan to secure his sure win bet. DS didn't think his angleshoot through, his ignorance got in the way.

  22. #232
    ArunSh
    ArunSh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-24-07
    Posts: 6,748
    Betpoints: 51409

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbywaves View Post
    Arunsh, who agrees to a gift giving contest? Just because I didn't state the obvious, no gifts? I don't state the obvious. I shouldn't have have even stated no loans, as that's just as obvious. I didn't think DS was an angle shooting douchebag, apparently I was wrong. Who ever agrees with what DS did, is a douchebag as well.

    Who "gifts" 100k? Why would the 100k gift be returned? I stated in original thread: "we'll see how much of a gift it was, when Tat returns the 100k." Obviously I was spot on, Tat returned the 100k to DS. Anyone with an IQ over 50, can clearly see DS circumvented the bet with a loan.

    Why didn't DS post up 72k with Yis to secure a huge bet like this? I would have agreed & done the same. Then the decision would be in Yisman's hands, not mine. DS needed to take a loan from dgnf, just to ship Tat the 100k loan. Apparently DS didn't want to solicit another 72k loan to secure his sure win bet. DS didn't think his angleshoot through, his ignorance got in the way.

    Bobbywaves: as I have stated, if you had simply made that point about the intent of the contest logically precluding gifts as well as loans, I would have felt you had a reasonable argument. However, you have continued to use tatddy's returning of the points to downsouth as your justification which as I said doesn't make sense since you declared long before the points were returned that you were not going to honor the bet and clearly would still have not honored the bet if tatddy had never returned the points. So why keep bringing up that issue when it obviously is not relevant to whether or not you would have paid off the bet?

    And again arguing that this was obviously not intended to be a gift giving contest is reasonable to a point, but unfortunately your own actions cloud that very issue. Let's say someone offered you a bet to see who could be the first to reach 100k points via legitimate means when they started with over 90k and you started with less than 10k? To use some of your own vernacular you would probably respond with something like "Anyone with an IQ over 50 can clearly see that accepting such a bet would be completely absurd". So if you offer a bet which has completely ridiculous terms and then someone accepts it and beats you in a fairly equally ridiculous way, is that person any "worse" than you really? I don't proclaim to agree with what downsouth did, but again it really seems to me that you opened yourself up to that by suggesting such an absurd bet to begin with. And I just have a feeling that if you (or anyone else) had offered a legitimate bet (like any of your past poker contests with him), and he had beaten you via "underhanded means" that the public would have been much more sympathetic to your point of view than they have seemed to be in this instance.

  23. #233
    SharpAngles
    SharpAngles's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-15-14
    Posts: 9,467
    Betpoints: 1638

    Quote Originally Posted by ArunSh View Post
    Bobbywaves: So why keep bringing up that issue when it obviously is not relevant to whether or not you would have paid off the bet?

    .
    Because that's the small b way. Even my boy Ed Hochuli doesn't need more than 7 words to explain...


  24. #234
    bobbywaves
    bobbywaves's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-06-08
    Posts: 13,278
    Betpoints: 960

    Quote Originally Posted by ArunSh View Post
    Bobbywaves: as I have stated, if you had simply made that point about the intent of the contest logically precluding gifts as well as loans, I would have felt you had a reasonable argument.
    I clearly & immediately addressed the intent of the contest logically precluding gifts as well as loans, in post # 52 here:
    http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...-terms-p2.html

    If I'm a stiff, why did I pay DS on bets twice prior to this incident? Also explain why I haven't stiffed in the 8+ years I've been here? Since I never solicited a pts loan here, obviously plays a huge part why I'm not a stiff.

    How about addressing Tripe's blatant theft of my 675 post up. If Tripe doesn't want my action, that's his right. However, my post up needs to be returned not stolen.

  25. #235
    aggieshawn
    SBR youtube Channels
    aggieshawn's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-24-07
    Posts: 4,359
    Betpoints: 1506

    Bobbywaves... what was the initial bet proposed by yourself for this 100k wager race and the terms you thought implied to it?

  26. #236
    Jayvegas420
    Vegas Baby!
    Jayvegas420's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 03-09-11
    Posts: 28,143
    Betpoints: 15015

    Its been addressed bob. You shouldnt have posted up with a guy who told you that if you post up with him, your points will be redustributed to those you stiffed.

    Youre not this stupid bob.

First ... 4567
Top