[Optional]

Is this our own SBR "Scarf" boy at the 13 minute mark???

[ArunSh]

Out of curiousity: was there ever any actual proof that snipr2006 was actually "scarf" boy, the guy who he claimed to be in his profile photo? Or was that possibly just a way of trying to give himself more reputability (pretending to be a pro) so that people would not suspect as quickly that he was scamming in poker via the horsemen?

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Opti, "scarf" = Kempe?

If so, he won a huge tournament last year.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Jun 01, '16

$300,000 No-Limit Hold'em Seven Max 2016 Super High Roller Bowl

1

$5,000,000

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Opti, is this him?

https://www.superhighroller.com/-/me...28EAC15DAC8B54

[Optional]

Out of curiousity: was there ever any actual proof that snipr2006 was actually "scarf" boy, the guy who he claimed to be in his profile photo? Or was that possibly just a way of trying to give himself more reputability (pretending to be a pro) so that people would not suspect as quickly that he was scamming in poker via the horsemen?

I'm not sure. Only admin people have access to tools to tell that stuff, and no one told me.

Opti, "scarf" = Kempe?

If so, he won a huge tournament last year.

I guess it isnt our man then :\

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Opti, why CAN'T "the scarf" = kempe? In chat, "the scarf" used to claim that he was a big-time player that was friendly w/ the name-players.

[Optional]

I guess he can be but I imagine if he was famous someone would have noticed that before.

Not that I have any clue who this Kempe guy is either.

[bobbywaves]

All I know is Sniper owes me 7.5K from this leaderboard bet:

To win the 2016 Poker Leaderboard (first place...

Anyone who delivers Sniper to my doorstep, will receive a 5k reward.

[ArunSh]

All I know is Sniper owes me 7.5K from this leaderboard bet:

To win the 2016 Poker Leaderboard (first place...

Anyone who delivers Sniper to my doorstep, will receive a 5k reward.

Cmon bobby you don't really believe you are actually legitimately owed anything on this bet do you?

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Bob...does Snipr = Kempe?

Check out the scarf!

[bobbywaves]

Cmon bobby you don't really believe you are actually legitimately owed anything on this bet do you?

Of course I'm "actually & legitimately owed" on this bet, are you insinuating Sniper beat me in our bet? Do I really need to post the 2016 leaderboard to prove who won, when I'm on the leaderboard every year?



Hmmm, I don't see Sniper on board.

[ArunSh]

Of course I'm "actually & legitimately owed" on this bet, are you insinuating Sniper beat me in our bet? Do I really need to post the 2016 leaderboard to prove who won, when I'm on the leaderboard every year?

Let me clarify what I meant. I know you have been burned by loaning to people who simply didn't pay back (studmlb for one, not sure if there are others). And I entirely agree with you that you are definitely owed by studmlb (I know the feeling, I've been burned in similar ways myself). But the snipr situation is not at all the same thing in my view.

To use an analogy: imagine someone went out and robbed a bank then used those funds to make a completely absurd bet with some third party (I would classify snipr betting to win the leaderboard while taking weeks off at a time from playing to be absurd, and I think most would concur). Then if the robber was caught at/near the end of the bet in question, do you think any court would listen to the third party if they tried to claim that some of the $ the thief stole should be given to them based on the ridiculous bet? Of course not, the person would be laughed out of court.

In essence, that to me is what happened with you and snipr. If by some chance he hadn't been banned and if by some miracle he actually had decided to pay off the wager (which I greatly doubt, since he was still claiming in around October, by which time it was totally impossible for him to win, that he still was going to "win" - he clearly had some sort of nonsense loophole in mind by which he was going to claim that he still won the bet), then the points he would have been using to pay you off were points that he effectively stole from SBR/other posters (scamming in poker via the horsemen, taking a loan and not paying it off in legitimate fashion, and god knows what else). Sorry, but I personally don't think you would have been at all entitled to receive "dirty" money in that fashion - being out of pocket by loaning your hard earned points to someone in good faith who never pays back is far different from expecting a scammer to pay you with stolen funds which you did not really legitimately earn/work for.

Frankly I'm rather baffled as to why you made such a bet to begin with without posting up (even if not posting up everything since it was a lot of points, at least each of you posting up say 20% would have gone a long way in avoiding one of you free rolling the other). It would have been one thing to make a bet without post up with an established poster like trytrytry or yisman, but with this guy who came out of nowhere and offered totally insane odds for this bet (odds which the best player in the world playing every day should not have even come close to getting - and him taking days/weeks off well...), really don't know why you took such a risk. If the horsemen hadn't been discovered, he could well have continued doing what he was doing, and he might well have managed to win the bet that way, in which case you would have been out a far from trivial amount of points. In effect, you let him completely free roll you by not requiring at least partial post up - just don't see why you'd risk that. I mean I understand you were probably drawn to the fact that you were being offered such insane odds, but as they say "if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is".

[bobbywaves]

I did ask Sniper to post up, right when he had enough pts to do so. But Sniper refused, saying he wanted to utilize his pts to bet sports & will simply buy the pts if necessary to pay lost poker bets. I can't force Sniper to post up, only requested we do so for my protection.

There was absolutely no "risk" on my part, as I didn't post up with Sniper. I'm on the leaderboard every year, Sniper's not. So I either win the bet & get paid by an honorable guy, or I win the bet & get stiffed by a dishonorable guy. Sniper's decision to pay me or not, doesn't change the outcome of our bet. By SBR prematurely banning Sniper, didn't allow the opportunity to see if Sniper would buy pts to pay his poker debts as promised.

I don't get the bank robbery analogy, unless Sniper's bans had him guilty of those three ghost accounts & colluding. From what I remember, that was pure speculation despite the coincidences. Since SBR doesn't post the reasons they ban people, that's why I question if Sniper was a proven thief.

[spider]

sniper's name is Thomas Luther. (credit goes to jake, who dug this up)


http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=195411

[ChuckyTheGoat]

The Scarf!

[ArunSh]

I did ask Sniper to post up, right when he had enough pts to do so. But Sniper refused, saying he wanted to utilize his pts to bet sports & will simply buy the pts if necessary to pay lost poker bets. I can't force Sniper to post up, only requested we do so for my protection.

There was absolutely no "risk" on my part, as I didn't post up with Sniper. I'm on the leaderboard every year, Sniper's not. So I either win the bet & get paid by an honorable guy, or I win the bet & get stiffed by a dishonorable guy. Sniper's decision to pay me or not, doesn't change the outcome of our bet. By SBR prematurely banning Sniper, didn't allow the opportunity to see if Sniper would buy pts to pay his poker debts as promised.

I don't get the bank robbery analogy, unless Sniper's bans had him guilty of those three ghost accounts & colluding. From what I remember, that was pure speculation despite the coincidences. Since SBR doesn't post the reasons they ban people, that's why I question if Sniper was a proven thief.

Of course, you can't force him to post up, but you can certainly refuse to enter into the wager if he refuses to post up - not sure why that's a complicated question. Naturally since he didn't have any intention of paying off the wager if he lost (again he was claiming still in October that he was going to win when it was totally impossible), he wasn't going to agree to post up after the fact lol.

Certainly there was risk on your part. I personally wholly believe that he was being dumped to/colluded to by the horsemen, there was definitely circumstantial evidence of that, and given the things he did later, it's by far the most likely scenario. Yes, you are correct it might not have been 100% proven, but I think it's safe to assume that that did happen. So assuming that was the case, he got away with it for at least a month (maybe two). Imagine he'd gotten away with it for the whole year, he very likely would have finished first on the leader board and then you would have had to pay off the bet to him, whereas he clearly never had any intention of paying you if he didn't win (again his claiming he was going to still win the bet in October is clear proof of that). So yes, I think you just completely got free rolled so there was definitely a risk to you.

Not sure why you keep posting the leaderboard with your name on it - the bet you had with him was whether he would finish in 1st or not right? How is your position on the leaderboard (whatever it might be) at all relevant to that? I'm quite aware that snipr didn't finish 1st - that was never in question to me as to why I felt you weren't really "owed" anything in this case.

Yes the bank robber analogy is reliant on the assumption that snipr was colluding with ghost accounts which as I said earlier wasn't 100% proven perhaps. But given the general circumstancial evidence, I once again feel (and I'm guessing most others would agree) that it is safe to assume that it did happen which to me makes the analogy quite correct.

As for spider's comment: as I asked earlier, is there any evidence that that person is actually snipr or was he, just as I mentioned earlier, simply trying to portray himself as some respected pro so that people would be less likely to think him capable of fraud? I'm curious what the proof that this was actually him there is.

[bobbywaves]

Why would I refuse a wager that I can't lose? Not sure why that's a complicated question. Just because he refused to post up, is no valid reason for me to refuse his bet. Did anyone else refuse his bet due to no post up? No.

Obviously nobody agrees to post up after the fact, you're simply expected to pay if you lose.

You keep claiming Sniper had no intention of paying & your only evidence is because he was optimistic & jokingly said he has a chance to win? Fact is, you have no clue what Sniper's true intentions were. You're only speculating. Sniper stated to me in PM's he would pay me with bought pts if he lost. I had no reason not to believe him & others with bets believed him as well. Or simply figured like me it's a no lose proposition by accepting his bet, as there's no way Sniper gets 1st on annual board.

The leaderboard was obviously posted in response to your comment below.

Cmon bobby you don't really believe you are actually legitimately owed anything on this bet do you?

Your comment above showed you were confused that I won the bet, by Sniper not being in 1st place. So the leaderboard was simply proof as to why I was actually & legitimately owed.

Majority of poker players here are the same people. So there's no way any cheating/collusion goes unnoticed for a year. So I wasn't the least bit concerned of losing bet, or I wouldn't have made the bet. Only somewhat concerned about being paid from a forum stranger.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Don't be silly Arun! Bobbo's not the type of guy who would think the loser of a wager shouldn't pay up on the bet they offered just because it was ridiculous and no post-up was made!

Oh wait...

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...ng-me-72k.html

[ArunSh]

Why would I refuse a wager that I can't lose? Not sure why that's a complicated question. Just because he refused to post up, is no valid reason for me to refuse his bet. Did anyone else refuse his bet due to no post up? No.

Obviously nobody agrees to post up after the fact, you're simply expected to pay if you lose.

You keep claiming Sniper had no intention of paying & your only evidence is because he was optimistic & jokingly said he has a chance to win? Fact is, you have no clue what Sniper's true intentions were. You're only speculating. Sniper stated to me in PM's he would pay me with bought pts if he lost. I had no reason not to believe him & others with bets believed him as well. Or simply figured like me it's a no lose proposition by accepting his bet, as there's no way Sniper gets 1st on annual board.

The leaderboard was obviously posted in response to your comment below.



Your comment above showed you were confused that I won the bet, by Sniper not being in 1st place. So the leaderboard was simply proof as to why I was actually & legitimately owed.

Majority of poker players here are the same people. So there's no way any cheating/collusion goes unnoticed for a year. So I wasn't the least bit concerned of losing bet, or I wouldn't have made the bet. Only somewhat concerned about being paid from a forum stranger.

Can't lose? A different person has finished atop the leader board almost every year (even myself once!). So while it's unlikely for any person to win, to claim you "can't lose" seems a bit strong. I mean if I wanted to bet that I would win it in 2018, would you offer me 500:1 odds since by the same theory you should not be able to lose that either right? Others not requesting post up - well I think if they cared as much about the bet as you seem to (bringing it up half a year later) then they were being foolish as well.

Yes nobody agrees to post up after the fact, that's why if you're concerned you require it before agreeing

Yes I believe snipr had no intention of paying, and you are correct I don't have 100% proof of that. But fact is that he stopped playing for weeks at a time (after the horsemen theory hit the place) - no one who legitimately was considering this as a serious bet would have done that. Jokingly said he had a chance to win? I believe his words were "reread the terms of the bet, I'll not lose it". Quite certain he had some loophole in mind via which he was going to claim he didn't actually lose, in which case he obviously would not pay off. Again, the circumstantial evidence certainly seems to point to him not going to pay off the bet, but yes you are correct I don't have 100% proof of that.

I knew that you won the "bet", that was not in question, I followed that saga when it was going on. That still doesn't explain why you highlighted your name on the board or why you mentioned "I'm on the leader board every year" when that's not relevant to this question. I simply just don't believe that when you make a bet which, by your own statement, that you "couldn't lose" with a scammer why you think you are legitimately owed anything after the scammer gets caught.

If I bet someone at this moment that Golden State would win the NBA title in 2017, and then I didn't get paid for whatever reason, do you really think anyone would be sympathetic to me for making a bet on something which had already won? If, by your own statement again, you had 0 chance to lose the bet with snipr, then how is that any different? Betting on something which is a "sure thing" (again by your own admission) makes you a swindler at best. So if you happened to make such a bet with someone who happened to be a swindler also, again I don't see how you can cry foul after the fact. Either the bet was a good faith bet on both sides (which means you certainly did have a legitimate chance to lose it however small), or it was not in good faith on your end since you "couldn't lose" which in my view makes it a scam. You can't have it both ways: either you legitimately could have lost the bet or you effectively were trying to scam him (but instead he wound up scamming you).

Did the people who got burned by Bernard Madoff think that even if they got the $ they invested returned that they would also be entitled to the "fictitious" profits that he reported to them over the years - $ that was really just stolen via other investors in a Ponzi scheme?


Anyway, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on this as I am to mine, and that's fine. We can debate this forever, but we clearly won't agree on it. I am glad that snipr did get banned for sure though: whatever scamming he was doing, ghosting, taking out loans and not repaying, making bets then not honoring them, he definitely needed to go so we can all be glad about that!

I am curious though: do some other posters have an opinion on this. Would be curious to hear other points of view.

[bobbywaves]

Don't be silly Arun! Bobbo's not the type of guy who would think the loser of a wager shouldn't pay up on the bet they offered just because it was ridiculous and no post-up was made!

[Auto Donk]

ol Scarfy....

I miss that guy!

[ArunSh]

Don't be silly Arun! Bobbo's not the type of guy who would think the loser of a wager shouldn't pay up on the bet they offered just because it was ridiculous and no post-up was made!

Oh wait...

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...ng-me-72k.html

Afraid I must agree with Triple on this one bobby. When I originally commented on that matter of the bet with downsouth, I agreed that you had a reasonable argument to not pay off that bet (you felt the way in which he won the bet was understood to be against the rules though it was not explicitly stated to be such - that's where the disagreement arose). Not to say I think you were 100% in the right, but I agree an argument can be made for either side there.

But if you are going to claim you don't owe that bet, I don't see how you can at the same time claim you are somehow owed on this bet. As I mentioned, snipr kept saying (not jokingly I'm quite certain) that he was not going to lose the bet - I think his loophole was something about "to win the 2016 leader board" without it stating that HE was the one who had to win it. Whatever his loophole was, I'm rather certain you would have screamed bloody murder if he had refused to pay at the end due to whatever it was (kind of a shame in a way he got banned so we didn't get to see what his idea was - though overall I'm very glad he did get banned). And once more, not sure how his loophole to get out of paying would have been any different than the loophole downsouth used to win the 72k bet with you.

After all to use your own statement: Obviously nobody agrees to post up after the fact, you're simply expected to pay if you lose. Just don't see how you can use that argument to think you are owed here, when by every indication downsouth can use the exact same logic to claim that you still owe him the 72k.

[Auto Donk]

just watched the big flush hand, DN saying over and over he had the nuts.... think 34 spds, not kqs, was "da nutz".....

almost hoped his opponent had it.....

[Triple_D_Bet]

Don't be silly Arun! Bobbo's not the type of guy who would think the loser of a wager shouldn't pay up on the bet they offered just because it was ridiculous and no post-up was made!

Have to wonder: is bobbo finally agreeing that he should pay DS, or are the big words just too confusing for him to realize that's what he's supporting by quoting me? Maybe he has to edit people's replies because he's not capable of understanding the words they originally used?

[Triple_D_Bet]

Can't lose? A different person has finished atop the leader board almost every year (even myself once!). So while it's unlikely for any person to win, to claim you "can't lose" seems a bit strong. I mean if I wanted to bet that I would win it in 2018, would you offer me 500:1 odds since by the same theory you should not be able to lose that either right? Others not requesting post up - well I think if they cared as much about the bet as you seem to (bringing it up half a year later) then they were being foolish as well.

Yes nobody agrees to post up after the fact, that's why if you're concerned you require it before agreeing

Yes I believe snipr had no intention of paying, and you are correct I don't have 100% proof of that. But fact is that he stopped playing for weeks at a time (after the horsemen theory hit the place) - no one who legitimately was considering this as a serious bet would have done that. Jokingly said he had a chance to win? I believe his words were "reread the terms of the bet, I'll not lose it". Quite certain he had some loophole in mind via which he was going to claim he didn't actually lose, in which case he obviously would not pay off. Again, the circumstantial evidence certainly seems to point to him not going to pay off the bet, but yes you are correct I don't have 100% proof of that.

I knew that you won the "bet", that was not in question, I followed that saga when it was going on. That still doesn't explain why you highlighted your name on the board or why you mentioned "I'm on the leader board every year" when that's not relevant to this question. I simply just don't believe that when you make a bet which, by your own statement, that you "couldn't lose" with a scammer why you think you are legitimately owed anything after the scammer gets caught.

If I bet someone at this moment that Golden State would win the NBA title in 2017, and then I didn't get paid for whatever reason, do you really think anyone would be sympathetic to me for making a bet on something which had already won? If, by your own statement again, you had 0 chance to lose the bet with snipr, then how is that any different? Betting on something which is a "sure thing" (again by your own admission) makes you a swindler at best. So if you happened to make such a bet with someone who happened to be a swindler also, again I don't see how you can cry foul after the fact. Either the bet was a good faith bet on both sides (which means you certainly did have a legitimate chance to lose it however small), or it was not in good faith on your end since you "couldn't lose" which in my view makes it a scam. You can't have it both ways: either you legitimately could have lost the bet or you effectively were trying to scam him (but instead he wound up scamming you).

Did the people who got burned by Bernard Madoff think that even if they got the $ they invested returned that they would also be entitled to the "fictitious" profits that he reported to them over the years - $ that was really just stolen via other investors in a Ponzi scheme?


Anyway, you are obviously entitled to your opinion on this as I am to mine, and that's fine. We can debate this forever, but we clearly won't agree on it. I am glad that snipr did get banned for sure though: whatever scamming he was doing, ghosting, taking out loans and not repaying, making bets then not honoring them, he definitely needed to go so we can all be glad about that!

I am curious though: do some other posters have an opinion on this. Would be curious to hear other points of view.

Ya know what's truly crazy Arun? Bobbo has lost several 'sure thing' bets to me in the past, when he tried betting that hsi version of reality was correct and I proved him wrong. He paid up each of those times, presumably because the points value was small enough to not permanently damage his ego. So it's not like he can even claim that a foregone outcome should invalidate a bet. The truth is simpler: as with everything else about him, he just pretends reality is different as required to feel that he's in the right.

[bobbywaves]

Can't lose bet to Sniper is correct. Really? I see the same guy on top of leaderboard almost every year, & his name is Jake not Sniper. In fact, Sniper wouldn't have an average yearly finish in the top 150 here. Not sure why you're trying to compare yourself to Sniper, 2 different players with totally different odds of winning annual board. Bringing it up? Did I create thread? No, Sniper's name was brought up & I simply stated the fact I was owed.

I wasn't concerned about losing bet, so no post up was ok. I would have posted up if Sniper agreed, but was also content not having 35.5k post up tied up with Yisman for a year.

My name was highlighted on that board photo long time ago, not today. Probably was done to bury Tripe or Donkey, as they're obviously not on the board. Highlight simply makes it easier & faster to distinguish names. Whether Sniper was determined to be a scammer, has nothing to do with the leaderboard bets he made. If Sniper was determined to be a scammer as you suggest, then SBR should have done the right thing by distributing all his pts proportionally to his lost wagers. This includes confiscating & distributing Sniper's 2.5k college bowl entry. Unfortunately the matter wasn't handled correctly, in my humble opinion.

Your Golden St analogy is even worse than your bank robbery analogy. First of all I didn't offer the bet, Sniper did. I merely accepted his bet, as I felt I had no chance of losing. Whether he pays me or not, I still lose nothing. So if accepting Sniper's offered odds when he has a 0.0000004% chance of winning annual board makes me a "swindler" somehow, I'm ok with that. Although most folks would just call it intelligent wagering on my part.

It would be ignorant for me to claim I know the thoughts of Bernard Madoff's investors, just like you claim to know Sniper's thoughts. Tempting as it was, I was intelligent enough not to invest with Berny. So unfortunately, you have to direct your question to Madoff's investors.

If SBR has evidence of Sniper breaking rules (assume they do since he was banned twice), then I can agree it's good for the forum he's gone. I just wanted SBR to give Sniper the chance of buying pts to make good on his debts before banning him. And when Sniper or anyone else is banned, their pt balance should be distributed towards well documented debts.

[ArunSh]

As I said bobby, no point in debating this further - we clearly see things differently (or as Triple said, you try to twist the situation to make yourself seem correct no matter what, as you are taking exactly the opposite point of view in this situation vs your situation with downsouth). And I can't blame you for that - everyone will want to do that to some extent, to justify their own point of view.

But whatever is correct regarding snipr, the fact remains that downsouth can make the exact same claims as you are making. You claim when downsouth "circumvented" the bet that he was trying swindle you - many others would just call it "intelligent wagering on his part" as you so eloquently put it. How is their argument any less valid than yours?

Who offered the bet is not relevant at all - point is making a bet (whoever offered) on something where you know it's a "sure thing" doesn't say much for your ethics if you are trying to act in good faith (i.e. if I was trying to bet on something where I already knew the outcome, even if the other person made the offer). Are you the sort who would make a bet like that if someone else offered and call it intelligent wagering then as well? Just curious.

And again downsouth didn't offer you a bet either did he - he accepted your bet, again the same argument you are using to try to further your claim that you are totally in the right here and acted completely ethically since it wasn't even you who "made the offer". Sorry but again you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I'm done debating this - as I said this is very much a matter of opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to yours. If you want to respond further just so you have the last word and then can feel that you "won" the debate, feel free, I don't really care. I just wanted to express my point of view.

[daneblazer]

I know who the guy is somehow and he's not Kempe. He is a pro however. ...or at least was one. Did fairly well too.

[bobbywaves]

Not sure how you can compare my Sniper bet with DS bet. Totally different bets, so I'll refresh your memory:

Sniper had to be 1st on 2016 annual board to win bet, he wasn't. Therefore he lost bet, pretty cut/dry & well documented. The ban has nothing to do with him losing the bet, the ban only prevented Sniper the opportunity to buy pts & pay his debts.

The DS bet had actually nothing to do with DS. I offered a bet who would get to 100k pts first, Tat or myself. Obviously no loans/gifts were allowed to get to 100k. DS blatantly broke my no loan term when he ignorantly transferred Tat 100k, in a lame attempt to circumvent my bet. Not just my opinion, others chimed in thread agreeing with me.

So we have DS attempting to circumvent my non poker related bet & me accepting Sniper's poker related bet with no circumventing involved. Obviously no similarities, except for Waves being screwed on both bets.

[Optional]

just watched the big flush hand, DN saying over and over he had the nuts.... think 34 spds, not kqs, was "da nutz".....

almost hoped his opponent had it.....

Ha, that would have been funny. He would have owned it though I bet.

I know who the guy is somehow and he's not Kempe. He is a pro however. ...or at least was one. Did fairly well too.

Did you think Kempe in the video looked like him?

Or maybe he used a Kempe pic one time to be funny on here??

[Triple_D_Bet]

Not sure how you can compare my Sniper bet with DS bet. Totally different bets, so I'll refresh your memory:

Sniper had to be 1st on 2016 annual board to win bet, he wasn't. Therefore he lost bet, pretty cut/dry & well documented. The ban has nothing to do with him losing the bet, the ban only prevented Sniper the opportunity to buy pts & pay his debts.

The DS bet had actually nothing to do with DS. I offered a bet who would get to 100k pts first, Tat or myself. Obviously no loans/gifts were allowed to get to 100k. DS blatantly broke my no loan term when he ignorantly transferred Tat 100k, in a lame attempt to circumvent my bet. Not just my opinion, others chimed in thread agreeing with me.

So we have DS attempting to circumvent my non poker related bet & me accepting Sniper's poker related bet with no circumventing involved. Obviously no similarities, except for Waves being screwed on both bets.

Well there you go Arun...the two bets weren't over the exact same thing, so obviously no similarities or inconsistency on bobbo's part! Of course, there's also no comparison between bobbo considering DS' bet void because an unspecified term was broken, and snipr being able to claim the same...presumably because a tiny minority of people who were unfamiliar with situation agreed with bobbo

At least you wrote enough that you exceeded his ability to read and he didn't try to misquote you, as he'll no doubt do to me

[ArunSh]

Well there you go Arun...the two bets weren't over the exact same thing, so obviously no similarities or inconsistency on bobbo's part! Of course, there's also no comparison between bobbo considering DS' bet void because an unspecified term was broken, and snipr being able to claim the same...presumably because a tiny minority of people who were unfamiliar with situation agreed with bobbo

At least you wrote enough that you exceeded his ability to read and he didn't try to misquote you, as he'll no doubt do to me

Yes thanks for clarifying what I meant Triple. I had resolved to end the debate with him since he clearly had no interest in trying to see another point of view, just wanted to misrepresent what I was saying to try to validate his position, and his last post was a clear example of that.

I obviously knew that his bet with snipr was a poker related bet and that the downsouth bet was related purely to points (just like I certainly knew from the start that snipr didn't win the 2016 leader board - that obviously was not my point at all, but he felt the need to copy/paste the leader board to show it to everyone, as if I didn't know, to try to misrepresent my position - acting like my argument was that maybe snipr did actually win the leader board).

My point was merely that if snipr hadn't been banned and had refused to pay off the leader board wager based on some loophole in the wording (e.g. that the bet said "to win the 2016 leader board" without any mention that HE actually had to win it), then bobby (correctly imo) would have screamed bloody murder and called for snipr's head. But a loophole in the wording is exactly the method he used to claim he didn't owe the bet that he proposed to downsouth (saying that the intent of the wording was no gifts when that definitely was not explicitly stated, only no loans). However valid each argument is in those two cases, both are certainly based on using loopholes in the way things were phrased to your advantage so there is a clear similarity - that was my main point. That one bet had to do with poker, the other a pure points bet obviously has no relevance towards that issue and had no bearing on the point I was trying to make.

Also, found it rather funny him saying "others chimed in thread agreeing with me". If I recall from that thread, roughly 80-90% of the people who spoke up seemed to be against him in that debate (and the poll that someone started I believe had a similar result). Whatever the exact numbers were, there were clearly some people who agreed with him and others who did not - just as one would expect in any "debate". I must say the logic of trying to claim your position in any debate is proved to be the correct one because some number of people agree with you is rather amusing - makes me wonder how anyone can ever not have the "correct" position in any debate if that logic is valid.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Yes thanks for clarifying what I meant Triple. I had resolved to end the debate with him since he clearly had no interest in trying to see another point of view, just wanted to misrepresent what I was saying to try to validate his position, and his last post was a clear example of that.

I obviously knew that his bet with snipr was a poker related bet and that the downsouth bet was related purely to points (just like I certainly knew from the start that snipr didn't win the 2016 leader board - that obviously was not my point at all, but he felt the need to copy/paste the leader board to show it to everyone, as if I didn't know, to try to misrepresent my position - acting like my argument was that maybe snipr did actually win the leader board).

My point was merely that if snipr hadn't been banned and had refused to pay off the leader board wager based on some loophole in the wording (e.g. that the bet said "to win the 2016 leader board" without any mention that HE actually had to win it), then bobby (correctly imo) would have screamed bloody murder and called for snipr's head. But a loophole in the wording is exactly the method he used to claim he didn't owe the bet that he proposed to downsouth (saying that the intent of the wording was no gifts when that definitely was not explicitly stated, only no loans). However valid each argument is in those two cases, both are certainly based on using loopholes in the way things were phrased to your advantage so there is a clear similarity - that was my main point. That one bet had to do with poker, the other a pure points bet obviously has no relevance towards that issue and had no bearing on the point I was trying to make.

Also, found it rather funny him saying "others chimed in thread agreeing with me". If I recall from that thread, roughly 80-90% of the people who spoke up seemed to be against him in that debate (and the poll that someone started I believe had a similar result). Whatever the exact numbers were, there were clearly some people who agreed with him and others who did not - just as one would expect in any "debate". I must say the logic of trying to claim your position in any debate is proved to be the correct one because some number of people agree with you is rather amusing - makes me wonder how anyone can ever not have the "correct" position in any debate if that logic is valid.

You've hit the heart of what makes bobbo amusing to keep around: his internal logic is anything but, and a constant source of amusement

[bobbywaves]

Well there you go Arun...the two bets weren't over the exact same thing, so obviously no similarities or inconsistency on bobbo's part! Of course, there's also no comparison between bobbo considering DS' bet void because an unspecified term was broken, and snipr being able to claim the same.

Good to see Tripe coming to his senses.