Stiffing is not as bad as people act like on this board

[StackinGreen]

I think by far the most overrated "outrage" on boards like this is the "stiffing" thing. I'm not talking betpoints. I'm talking locals who do things like charge .20 juice, change betting menus, and then, when they overextend some retard past some number there's no way he can possibly pay, act all high and mighty and ethical as if they are some moral compass.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reality for the local bookie is that he would have no market to get good juice on both sides, 90% losers, and a great living if he didn't make sure he paid every gdamn time someone won. These bookies act like there is honor when in reality, it's only a business decision for them. The only thing they have on the player that overextends is his degenerate ass can't stop the thrill of gambling and losing, so if the player went too far tilt, of course he's gonna stiff. It's got nothing to do with good guys or bad guys.

Bookies are all talk, full of crap, and you know the bookies that don't have problems with players?

The guys who give free plays, who treat the customer like he is the 90% loser he is, who don't let some idiot go degen to a number way over his possible payment.

It's never worth a bookies time to come after anyone. Too many other losers are coming up soon, and they pay more than enough for the handful of winners and the stiffs combined.

But I love how wise guys on here act like they ever do, it's somewhat amusing.

[relaaxx]

good read ---- i like the logic ---

[ADR51]

ok....

[downsouth]

So how much did you stiff him for?

[KVB]

I do not make book, never have. I am a player for sure. However, smart bookies know that when some of us call in a play, the line needs to be shaded for the rest or the action layed off.

A smart bookie works with his sharp players to fine tune is business, as his business is local. And you're right, there always a new crop of money feeding the markets.

So what happened stackin? Did you go on tilt with credit or did you let someone do it to you knowing full well what was going to happen?

[BrickJames]

Stiff still needs to see the stiff in the mirror every morning. Thats no way to live. Be a man, set up a payment plan.

[mtneer1212]

I think by far the most overrated "outrage" on boards like this is the "stiffing" thing. I'm not talking betpoints. I'm talking locals who do things like charge .20 juice, change betting menus, and then, when they overextend some retard past some number there's no way he can possibly pay, act all high and mighty and ethical as if they are some moral compass.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reality for the local bookie is that he would have no market to get good juice on both sides, 90% losers, and a great living if he didn't make sure he paid every gdamn time someone won. These bookies act like there is honor when in reality, it's only a business decision for them. The only thing they have on the player that overextends is his degenerate ass can't stop the thrill of gambling and losing, so if the player went too far tilt, of course he's gonna stiff. It's got nothing to do with good guys or bad guys.

Bookies are all talk, full of crap, and you know the bookies that don't have problems with players?

The guys who give free plays, who treat the customer like he is the 90% loser he is, who don't let some idiot go degen to a number way over his possible payment.

It's never worth a bookies time to come after anyone. Too many other losers are coming up soon, and they pay more than enough for the handful of winners and the stiffs combined.

But I love how wise guys on here act like they ever do, it's somewhat amusing.

I hope they break your f*cking arm. Pay up deadbeat. Don't like the menu, shop elsewhere.... but if you dine at the restaurant, pay the f*cking bill.

[eberetta1]

Mind loaning me 6000 points?

[konck]

Mind loaning me 6000 points?

He cant he stiffed SBR the 100 to go pro

[cincy]

I have been stiffed a couple times by locals. Even supposedly reputable PPH shops like IDSCA let their agent stiff me even tough I had all the documentation and proof that he was stiffing me.

[scottgodson1985]

i don't wish harm on many, but for you im gonna make a exception.

[SharpAngles]

You only got 2 things in life. Your word and your balls. Don't break em for nobody...

[StackinGreen]

I love how you still get guys coming on this thread

A) Assuming I stiffed someone
B) Confirming my original post
C) supporting that locals also stiff
D) "hoping" someone gets hurt

Think about how funny some of those are, and how stupid the others are

If you're a real 'capper you understand the game and demythologize it. That's what I did.

Just trying to be honest. Not many are.

[Optional]

so if the player went too far tilt, of course he's gonna stiff. It's got nothing to do with good guys or bad guys.

Um... yes it does. Good people usually dont get in the spot to start with and if they do they try to fix it. Bad people just steal and walk away without a care.

Must be kind of useful to have so little moral depth to be able to do that though.

[StackinGreen]

I'm willing to have the conversation that's why I made the thread. I didn't create it to vent and not take in what others might have to say.

That said, the game of NO-POST UP is inherently stacked against the player, and the downside of that advantage (chasing or full tilt) for the bookie is precisely what gives him losses multiplied, and might I add, paid to him before it becomes too much.

When you don't really lend money to people, it's not real money. It might be weird to you, but if you physically give someone cash and they go and bet it at a post up (ie, Vegas) sportsbook, it is entirely different --- namely that cash is transferable to any enterprise and credit on an online book is not. It makes the decision, even the nature of the decision, totally different regarding the money "wagered".

Anyone who has been around knows this very well. I'm surprised people take exception to it and act like it isn't a clear and obvious point.

[StackinGreen]

Um... yes it does. Good people usually dont get in the spot to start with and if they do they try to fix it. Bad people just steal and walk away without a care.

Must be kind of useful to have so little moral depth to be able to do that though.

Furthermore, and it appears this must be said, is that I believe it's weird to talk about intra-situational ethics when the initial situation is by definition unethical or immoral and/or illegal. My view is that the entirety of it is a dance, a business dance if you will --- the bookie extends X credit, sees if the bettor can dance with X, allows more if he feels it right, calls limits to bets, puts caps on total available, etc.

It really is as simple as "Player X wants to bet. Bookie Y has to manage how X or anyone else interacts with his terms and wishes."

If the player "screws" the bookie, it's nobody's fault but the bookie.

The proof of this is that the edge is so great for the book, they make tons of money considering the (sunk or "business") cost of stiffs. To act like bookies don't know that stiffing is a clear, obvious business cost is just unrealistic and frankly, stupid. Only a bad businessman would not realize this is the primary cost anyone thinks about when starting. And any decent one ain't no bad businessman. Let's be honest.

[BrickJames]

Furthermore, and it appears this must be said, is that I believe it's weird to talk about intra-situational ethics when the initial situation is by definition unethical or immoral and/or illegal. My view is that the entirety of it is a dance, a business dance if you will --- the bookie extends X credit, sees if the bettor can dance with X, allows more if he feels it right, calls limits to bets, puts caps on total available, etc.

It really is as simple as "Player X wants to bet. Bookie Y has to manage how X or anyone else interacts with his terms and wishes."

If the player "screws" the bookie, it's nobody's fault but the bookie.

The proof of this is that the edge is so great for the book, they make tons of money considering the (sunk or "business") cost of stiffs. To act like bookies don't know that stiffing is a clear, obvious business cost is just unrealistic and frankly, stupid. Only a bad businessman would not realize this is the primary cost anyone thinks about when starting. And any decent one ain't no bad businessman. Let's be honest.

Wrong. You bet. You lose. You owe. End of story.

[StackinGreen]

Wrong. You bet. You lose. You owe. End of story.

Great argument.

Except ...

In real life, it doesn't happen, there are something called "stiffs" ... and they eventually can't gamble anymore, and bookies don't have them, but still make a great living.

Your post doesn't contribute anything to the conversation or more importantly, reality.

[terrortwylight]

StackinGreen-

I agree with your logic. Can't really argue with any of your points. But I am curious as to why you're bringing this up. You seem pretty passionate about it. I don't think you stiffed anybody, just to be clear.

[BrickJames]

Great argument.

Except ...

In real life, it doesn't happen, there are something called "stiffs" ... and they eventually can't gamble anymore, and bookies don't have them, but still make a great living.

Your post doesn't contribute anything to the conversation or more importantly, reality.

I think my post pretty much sums it up perfectly with a nice little bow.

[MoMoneyMoVaughn]

Did this guy just come on here seeking validation for his stiffing some guey?

Unrael

[Optional]

Furthermore, and it appears this must be said, is that I believe it's weird to talk about intra-situational ethics when the initial situation is by definition unethical or immoral and/or illegal. My view is that the entirety of it is a dance, a business dance if you will --- the bookie extends X credit, sees if the bettor can dance with X, allows more if he feels it right, calls limits to bets, puts caps on total available, etc.

It really is as simple as "Player X wants to bet. Bookie Y has to manage how X or anyone else interacts with his terms and wishes."

If the player "screws" the bookie, it's nobody's fault but the bookie.

The proof of this is that the edge is so great for the book, they make tons of money considering the (sunk or "business") cost of stiffs. To act like bookies don't know that stiffing is a clear, obvious business cost is just unrealistic and frankly, stupid. Only a bad businessman would not realize this is the primary cost anyone thinks about when starting. And any decent one ain't no bad businessman. Let's be honest.

Gambling isn't illegal in most places outside the USA and as far as I am concerned there is nothing unethical/immoral about bookmaking or betting. And it's only bloody illegal in the US to protect the incumbent interests, not the moral fabric of society, so I have little/no respect for that law as far as a moral compass at all.

I do get what you are saying. Credit bookies often play games to suck people in as far as possible. Credit to a gambler with a problem is like waving heroin in front of an addict. But stealing from a scumbag still makes you a scumbag as well, same as it would stealing from the collection plate. No difference technically.

[StackinGreen]

Thank you for at least admitting that it's an entirely different situation. I agree that gambling in and of itself is not unethical. Like anything, if it is made into an idol and your life structures itself around it, then it is a problem.

Still, going on tilt "wagering" money that was never real is hardly "stealing." I guess that's the point I'm trying to hammer home most here. Your analogy isn't correct again with the collection plate because that money is real and exists, truly. That's totally different, not even close to technically near in comparison.

With post up, I would never make a post like this. One would take their prices (shitty or not), lay the money, win and collect, or lose and walk away.

[downsouth]

Thank you for at least admitting that it's an entirely different situation. I agree that gambling in and of itself is not unethical. Like anything, if it is made into an idol and your life structures itself around it, then it is a problem.

Still, going on tilt "wagering" money that was never real is hardly "stealing." I guess that's the point I'm trying to hammer home most here. Your analogy isn't correct again with the collection plate because that money is real and exists, truly. That's totally different, not even close to technically near in comparison.

With post up, I would never make a post like this. One would take their prices (shitty or not), lay the money, win and collect, or lose and walk away.

So if credit company gives me more credit than I an afford to pay is it ok if I go on spending spree and stiff the company because they gave me more credit than they should have? And I cant help it but spend the money.

[Ataraxia]

Still, going on tilt "wagering" money that was never real is hardly "stealing." I guess that's the point I'm trying to hammer home most here.

Following this logic, would then make it ok for the bookie to not pay you if you win. Thats ok as well?

[StackinGreen]

Following this logic, would then make it ok for the bookie to not pay you if you win. Thats ok as well?

I've addressed that question. The enterprise has obviously shown that it does wonderfully with the existence of so-called "stiffs". Basically, that's how great the drug of betting and the vig edge the books have is. Everyone should be aware of this. My focus has never been that anything is "OK". You guys are using that line of thinking or terminology. I have said that it's a known business cost - and the bookie advantages well surpass any cost of stiffs, it's not even close. The business cost, however, of stiffing players is HUGE --- it's essentially business suicide. So it's not about OK, it's about if you want to keep making money, you literally can't do it or else your business goes under. The flip side isn't true, at all, as evidenced by the fact that tons of people stiff yet bookies still make millions. Why? Smart ones realize what I've posted on this thread act accordingly. I hope that clears your misconception up.

[StackinGreen]

So if credit company gives me more credit than I an afford to pay is it ok if I go on spending spree and stiff the company because they gave me more credit than they should have? And I cant help it but spend the money.

Read above, I address this in post #15 --- see the point on cash transferable, which an online "$ available" quote just for betting ... is not.

[Ataraxia]

I do believe, you believe what your saying makes sense.

[Roy Halladay]

Traitor

[KVB]

...If you're a real 'capper you understand the game and demythologize it. That's what I did...

No you didn't. You simply provided rationalization for and against someone not paying.

Your posts neither add to education on the subject nor do they disspell any myths.

I'll agree, I've written time and time again that it's not that gamblers don't know, it's that what they know is wrong.

But in this thread, there is no knowledge being put down for somebody to pick up.

Perhaps there is a specific instance you are taking about because your generalizations, while they sound good, aren't always true?

...If the player "screws" the bookie, it's nobody's fault but the bookie...

I like comparing the whole thing to a dance but it takes two to tango. If a player screws a bookie it is most often the fault of both parties.

Don't perpetuate or start a myth that all players who bet above their means are innocent because it is the fault of the bookie.

...To act like bookies don't know that stiffing is a clear, obvious business cost is just unrealistic and frankly, stupid...

Who’s acting like this? Who said this? Why do you think gamblers over the age of 18 think this? What myth do you think you are clearing up here?

Did you read this in a post?

...Your post doesn't contribute anything to the conversation or more importantly, reality.

Why did you make this thread and what type of discussion where you looking to get?

[StackinGreen]

Ok, no need to continue, then

[KVB]

It's all good Stackin. I was having a bit of a morning and it's wrong for me to assume nobody learned from your posts.

Good luck this weekend.

[StackinGreen]

It's all good Stackin. I was having a bit of a morning and it's wrong for me to assume nobody learned from your posts.

Good luck this weekend.

Likewise.

[BrickJames]

Thank you for at least admitting that it's an entirely different situation. I agree that gambling in and of itself is not unethical. Like anything, if it is made into an idol and your life structures itself around it, then it is a problem.

Still, going on tilt "wagering" money that was never real is hardly "stealing." I guess that's the point I'm trying to hammer home most here. Your analogy isn't correct again with the collection plate because that money is real and exists, truly. That's totally different, not even close to technically near in comparison.

With post up, I would never make a post like this. One would take their prices (shitty or not), lay the money, win and collect, or lose and walk away.

Dude, when you win you get paid right? Ok so the money is real guy.

[StackinGreen]

I wasn't trying to re-enter the equation, but there is an example outside of gambling which is far more real world, re:the money is "real" point you bring up. That is, credit card companies deal with bankrupt people and settle for less than the "borrowed" amount all the time.

Think about it for a second, Brick. Then my points might come together in your head, if you are open to thinking in new and different ways. Don't be so 1 dimensional.