The Word On The Street [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:08 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
GoT and Diablo played weboggle $100/game. Diablo won 5 straight games. Diablo used some engine on the net or something that solves the board for you, so, he was effectively scoring in the 400-500 point range on boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

the key was in the exact terms of the prop bet itself. i believe it was something like, "whoever gets the most points using any means necessary" or something to that effect.

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:08 AM

by the way what's up with this J. A. sucker story?

Schneids

02-09-2005, 04:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Isn't El D smart enough to simply beat GoT straight up?

[/ QUOTE ]

seems like he is smart enough to beat him within the rules of the bet.

also seems like GoT was dumb enough to be taken advantage of by the rules of the bet.

buyer beware!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess some people chose pride and others shame.

Michael Davis

02-09-2005, 04:09 AM

The better question is how GoT continued to play.

-Michael

Schneids

02-09-2005, 04:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
by the way what's up with this J. A. sucker story?

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember last year in the HUSH forum that huge talker MensaIQ and him eventually getting goaded into a HU freeze out against Ulysses. I'm saying that after news of the weboggle bet, I wouldn't be shocked if Diablo wasn't actually the one at the keyboard in his HU match against Mensa...

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:12 AM

ok, i thought there was a possibility you had some inside info on that match, and you were just now dropping it as a tidbit.

that doesn't sound like something diablo would do. if he says he's gonna play, he will be the one to play.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 04:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hear Diablo is too pussy to try to beat people straight up in bets and has to rely on cheating to win.

What a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it cheating that Kobayashi snaps his hot dogs in half and dips the buns in water? Does the man who eats five hot dogs the "traditional" way claim victory over him? Please.

Let me give you another example. Let's say I run into a caveman on the street. Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!" I take him up on his offer. He starts running, faster than I've ever seen a human travel. Wow, that is one mf'in fast caveman. I jump in my car and blow by him. He finally gets to the end and says "WHAT THE F IS THAT THING DIABLO?" "A car, caveman, a car." Did I cheat? No, the caveman just made a stupid prop bet.

sthief09

02-09-2005, 04:28 AM

are you arguing that he should pay you, or just that you "did nothing wrong."

what you're saying is like me challenging you to a headsup match and beating you because I had a pattern mapper

Michael Davis

02-09-2005, 04:29 AM

This analogy isn't complete. For it to be so, the caveman has to challenge you to a rematch.

-Michael

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:32 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />

Isn't El D smart enough to simply beat GoT straight up?

[/ QUOTE ]

seems like he is smart enough to beat him within the rules of the bet.

also seems like GoT was dumb enough to be taken advantage of by the rules of the bet.

buyer beware!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess some people chose pride and others shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, perfectly within the confines of the prop bet.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
are you arguing that he should pay you, or just that you "did nothing wrong."

what you're saying is like me challenging you to a headsup match and beating you because I had a pattern mapper

[/ QUOTE ]

When I play poker online, I do it without the aid of pokertracker or pokerview or gametime or any of those aids. You and GoT both use these computer aids to your poker game, right? Aids that give you an advantage over many of your opponents that don't use them? Are you guys cheating?

James282

02-09-2005, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hear Diablo is too pussy to try to beat people straight up in bets and has to rely on cheating to win.

What a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it cheating that Kobayashi snaps his hot dogs in half and dips the buns in water? Does the man who eats five hot dogs the "traditional" way claim victory over him? Please.

Let me give you another example. Let's say I run into a caveman on the street. Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!" I take him up on his offer. He starts running, faster than I've ever seen a human travel. Wow, that is one mf'in fast caveman. I jump in my car and blow by him. He finally gets to the end and says "WHAT THE F IS THAT THING DIABLO?" "A car, caveman, a car." Did I cheat? No, the caveman just made a stupid prop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, you guys are crazy if you really think Diablo will collect on this bet. He has better things to do that to knowingly rip off someone for 500 bucks he doesn't even need.
-James

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 04:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hear Diablo is too pussy to try to beat people straight up in bets and has to rely on cheating to win.

What a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it cheating that Kobayashi snaps his hot dogs in half and dips the buns in water? Does the man who eats five hot dogs the "traditional" way claim victory over him? Please.

Let me give you another example. Let's say I run into a caveman on the street. Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!" I take him up on his offer. He starts running, faster than I've ever seen a human travel. Wow, that is one mf'in fast caveman. I jump in my car and blow by him. He finally gets to the end and says "WHAT THE F IS THAT THING DIABLO?" "A car, caveman, a car." Did I cheat? No, the caveman just made a stupid prop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, you guys are crazy if you really think Diablo will collect on this bet. He has better things to do that to knowingly rip off someone for 500 bucks he doesn't even need.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make one thing very clear here, James. GoT owes me $500.

pshreck

02-09-2005, 04:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you arguing that he should pay you, or just that you "did nothing wrong."

what you're saying is like me challenging you to a headsup match and beating you because I had a pattern mapper

[/ QUOTE ]

When I play poker online, I do it without the aid of pokertracker or pokerview or gametime or any of those aids. You and GoT both use these computer aids to your poker game, right? Aids that give you an advantage over many of your opponents that don't use them? Are you guys cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Weak comparison.

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:40 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
I hear Diablo is too pussy to try to beat people straight up in bets and has to rely on cheating to win.

What a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it cheating that Kobayashi snaps his hot dogs in half and dips the buns in water? Does the man who eats five hot dogs the "traditional" way claim victory over him? Please.

Let me give you another example. Let's say I run into a caveman on the street. Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!" I take him up on his offer. He starts running, faster than I've ever seen a human travel. Wow, that is one mf'in fast caveman. I jump in my car and blow by him. He finally gets to the end and says "WHAT THE F IS THAT THING DIABLO?" "A car, caveman, a car." Did I cheat? No, the caveman just made a stupid prop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, you guys are crazy if you really think Diablo will collect on this bet. He has better things to do that to knowingly rip off someone for 500 bucks he doesn't even need.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

that is not the point! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Schneids

02-09-2005, 04:41 AM

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:42 AM

did you ignore the very strong caveman analogy?

Schneids

02-09-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
did you ignore the very strong caveman analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

James282

02-09-2005, 04:43 AM

I didn't comment on whether he owed it to you or not. I simply said that I don't expect you to collect on the bet.
-James

pshreck

02-09-2005, 04:44 AM

I agree that it's not cheating, but in the same way many forms of hustling aren't technically cheating, i.e. faking how good you are at golf/pool to be able to make bets at it.

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:48 AM

right, clearly it's a hustle, not cheating. it's like a bar bet, etc.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 04:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's not cheating, but in the same way many forms of hustling aren't technically cheating, i.e. faking how good you are at golf/pool to be able to make bets at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wanted to hustle GoT I would have kept him within striking distance or even sandbagged a little until he was confident enough to increase the stakes. Believe me, hustling GoT out of way more than $500 would have been a trivial exercise.

Daliman

02-09-2005, 04:53 AM

Analogy #1 Terrible. Comparable would be if Kobayashi were able to THROW OUT the buns.

#2 Dumb too.

I'd expect more from you.

daryn

02-09-2005, 04:54 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Analogy #1 Terrible. Comparable would be if Kobayashi were able to THROW OUT the buns.

#2 Dumb too.

I'd expect more from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain how they are dumb? both contestants have access to the same tools.

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 05:13 AM

All i know about the situation is what has come up in this thread.

I think what El Diablo alleged to do is sick. No Hounour, No integrity.

I think all those that hang off El Diablo's cock would have a big change in opinion if GoT had done it to El D.

rJ

Daliman

02-09-2005, 05:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Analogy #1 Terrible. Comparable would be if Kobayashi were able to THROW OUT the buns.

#2 Dumb too.

I'd expect more from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain how they are dumb? both contestants have access to the same tools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the first one is dumb for obvious reasons.

The second one is dumb because the "caveman" is not familiar with cars, therefore is betting/playing at a handicap. Now, if "any means necessary" or sililar was a caveat in the actual bet in question, then I suppose that's GoT's mistake. But a better analogy would be a golf match where a player doesn't realize his opponent has another person throwing his balls into more favorable spots while the initial player isn't looking.

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 05:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me, hustling GoT out of way more than $500 would have been a trivial exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hustling GoT out of way more than $500"

So you admit then to hustling him out of $500.

Maybe this is all just some elaborate ruse to have a little fun on the posters of OOT not in the joke. I hope it is, because i really expected much more out of the "community."

rJ

El Cordobes

02-09-2005, 05:35 AM

El Diablo beat GoT under the terms of the prop bet.

El Diablo was clearly angleshooting and demonstrating unethical and ungentlemanly behavior.

I agree that Diablo could have easily taken more money off of GoT by being more deceptive, however, what Diablo did still stands as deceptive and unethical.

The PlayerView/Gametime/Pokertracker analogy is flawed. Those tools give you an edge over your opponent, but you still have to know how to play poker. You still have to be able to out bet your opponent. You have to know how a 83/32/2.4 is different from a 23/18/5.3 and be able to take advantage of your knowledge gained from the tools.

After using the boggle tool, there is no game. It solves the entire game for you. You don't have to decide anything. Having no boggle skills whatsoever, you can completely destroy excellent boggle players not using the tool, simply by the virtue of using the tool. This is not the case with GT/PV/PT.

The caveman analogy is flawed. What happened is more like this:

Two running buddies meet at a track every so often to go running together. One week, dude A says to dude B, "Hey, let's put $100 on whoever can do a mile faster." Dude B says sure. Dude A jumps on a motorcycle and does a mile.

Dude A won under the terms of the bet, however he completely destroyed the notion of friendly competition. Just like Diablo argued that there was a reasonable expectation that they were playing hi-score wins, I think GoT has a similiar argument: He has a reasonable expectation that both players are using their mind to pick out words from a grid, not copying from a list of solutions.

I think Diablo's goal was to make GoT look like a chump, but I believe Diablo's the real chump here.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 05:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The second one is dumb because the "caveman" is not familiar with cars, therefore is betting/playing at a handicap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, wait a second. This is the most horrible logic ever.

You are saying that I should not accept the bet because the caveman is not smart enough to know what he is getting himself into? If I'm a professional bowler and someone comes up to me unprompted and says "Hey, I bet you $100 I can beat you in a game of bowling" I should decline because they are quite likely betting/playing at a handicap?

THIS IS LIKE THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF BETTING. YOU TAKE BETS WHERE YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION/ADVANTAGE THAN THE OTHER GUY.

I can just imagine you, calling your bookie. You're giving 7 points? Are you crazy? Haven't you heard, their QB got injured. All the other books are now only giving 4 points. Giving me 7 points would be a really stupid wager for you to take, bookie!

[ QUOTE ]
But a better analogy would be a golf match where a player doesn't realize his opponent has another person throwing his balls into more favorable spots while the initial player isn't looking.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better golf analogy would be one golfer using ancient clubs and the other golfer using the latest high-tech clubs.

sthief09

02-09-2005, 05:39 AM

hmm I actually think it's a pretty good analogy. it's an extreme case (PT and PV don't play poker for us) but they are along the same lines

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Believe me, hustling GoT out of way more than $500 would have been a trivial exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hustling GoT out of way more than $500"

So you admit then to hustling him out of $500.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you, Matlock?

Someone implied that I hustled GoT. I was simply pointing out that if it were my desire to hustle GoT I could easily do it for a lot more than $500.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 05:41 AM

I thought you were better than this. No way I would ever scam someone I had any respect for by angelshooting.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were better than this. No way I would ever scam someone I had any respect for by angelshooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

All these responses are truely amazing.

I wonder how GoT feels about all of this.
Surely he can't feel "cheated".

This is one of those prop bets that makes a person giggle.
The first thing which came to my mind was -

"Doh!"

Apparently the first thing which came to some of your minds was -

"I'm shocked and appalled!"

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 05:47 AM

Why didn't you just post as GoT?

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were better than this. No way I would ever scam someone I had any respect for by angelshooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so if I have no respect for GoT, it's all good?

Schneids

02-09-2005, 05:50 AM

A lot of things have implied expectations.

Take the rule in card rooms about asking to see a mucked hand at showdown. Tehnically, you can do that whenever you want to. The rule is in place to help spot colluding. But sure, you can go right ahead and ask for all the cards face up if your heart contents, since the way the rule is worded it says you can. You're just going to look like a dick doing it.

It's really lame to basically turn bets into a "lets see who can weasel themselves into victory by some stupid technicality based on how we worded it."

I admit it's kinda funny that you pulled this on GoT. It'd be funny if for a couple days you made him think he has to pay you. It's pretty pathetic if you accept payment from him.

That's how I look at it.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 05:52 AM

BTW, are you his new boyfriend now or something?

Sponger15SB

02-09-2005, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought you were better than this. No way I would ever scam someone I had any respect for by angelshooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so if I have no respect for GoT, it's all good?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE!

Seriously what the [censored] is wrong with you?

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 06:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It's really lame to basically turn bets into a "lets see who can weasel themselves into victory by some stupid technicality based on how we worded it."

[/ QUOTE ]

So then maybe GoT should stoop to El D's rules and pay him in Canadian dollars or some other $$ with an even lower rate of exchange.

I assume the deal also didn't state when the $$ had to be paid by. GoT should play by the rules and the spirit of the rules set out by ElD and pay him in 50 years when $500 buys you a stick of gum.

Perhaps they never stated how he would be paid. GoT can forward me the money and i will arrange for $500 in Canadian pennies to be sitting at my house for El D to arrange to have picked up. Im sure the rules never stated where he had to pay him.

Im sure we can come up with more prop bet angles to shoot El D style.

rJ

Schneids

02-09-2005, 06:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, are you his new boyfriend now or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a major whore I get passed around all the time, you know the type... think back to your childhood and how you always heard your mom come into the house through the back door late at night.

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 06:12 AM

This is a really crappy situation for both of them. GoT will lose some respect in here if he doesn't honor the bet and El Diablo will lose some for collecting on it. All this for $500 that they each could probably make in a few hours. It really doesn't seem worth it...

eric5148

02-09-2005, 06:12 AM

The word on the street is: you're spending way too much energy on this.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's really lame to basically turn bets into a "lets see who can weasel themselves into victory by some stupid technicality based on how we worded it."

[/ QUOTE ]

So then maybe GoT should stoop to El D's rules and pay him in Canadian dollars or some other $$ with an even lower rate of exchange.

I assume the deal also didn't state when the $$ had to be paid by. GoT should play by the rules and the spirit of the rules set out by ElD and pay him in 50 years when $500 buys you a stick of gum.

Perhaps they never stated how he would be paid. GoT can forward me the money and i will arrange for $500 in Canadian pennies to be sitting at my house for El D to arrange to have picked up. Im sure the rules never stated where he had to pay him.

Im sure we can come up with more prop bet angles to shoot El D style.

rJ

[/ QUOTE ]

RJ, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 06:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]

RJ, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was my assumption the bet had not yet been paid. If it has then obviously my post doesnt make much sense.

rJ

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, are you his new boyfriend now or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a major whore I get passed around all the time, you know the type... think back to your childhood and how you always heard your mom come into the house through the back door late at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike you, I had no such experiences in my childhood. Sorry to hear you have such crappy childhood memories. I should have let your mom leave sooner.

SpicyF

02-09-2005, 06:20 AM

Interesting thread, must add some thoughts.

I think GoT got cheated, not hustled. And you only use cheating when you are trying to scam someone who you know is trying to cheat you. These guidelines I'm sure everybody knows.

To clarify what I mean, I'll tell some poker anecdotes.

Pete the hustler finds a homegame with very weak players, the first 5 times he is there he lose a little every time and gets invited back time after time. Then it's SB night and homegames is "highstakes evening" 10x normal stakes. Pete the hustler shows up playing his A game and wins a million dollar.

Pete hustled the homegame.

Same scenario as above but this time it's Chris the cheater, and he lose a few times then Highstakes evening and he starts to cheat and wins a million dollar.

The diffrence is not huge at all, both players knew they were gonna win, only diff is that Chris knew the cards, the outcome.

Now, lets say Pete and Chris came into this game at the same time, doing their routine. But Pete knows Chris is a cheater and understand that he is gonna cheat the highstakes evening game. So Pete does a "Shade" (the movie) and re-cheats to hustle Chris the cheater. This is accepetable.

To relate to the boggle game, Diablo didnt somehow cover up his skills by dumping a few games then trying to up the stakes. Instead he used a program to give him all the possible words. If he woulda cover up his skills he would have been Pete the hustler, but instead by knowing all the words (like knowing the cards) he became Chris the cheat.

I'm not saying that GoT didn't try to do some hustle on Diablo, but I have not heard anything about this.

I will give credit to Diablo for getting GoT to agree with the prop bet terms letting him use the boggle solver to his advantage. But I think it was a lousy thing to do.

Schneids

02-09-2005, 06:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The word on the street is: you're spending way too much energy on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been a fun ruse that has taken a lot of time hasn't it? Must mean it's about time to quit posting in this thread /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The word on the street is: you're spending way too much energy on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been a fun ruse that has taken a lot of time hasn't it? Must mean it's about time to quit posting in this thread /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So it was all a hoax. I guess i should have went with the gut feeling.

rJ

El Cordobes

02-09-2005, 06:46 AM

Because I don't have his password.

I argued that you acted unethically, no one has disputed that.

You have succeeded at making GoT look foolish though, I mean, how can you not laugh at "A car, caveman, a car."? I must admit that is some funny [censored].

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 06:53 AM

I'm pretty drunk right now. But! I am completely willing to pay El Diablo if he responds to this post and demands that I transfer him the money. I will lose some respect for him in the process, and it looks like others will as well, but I will transfer him the money. Techically, there was no caveat made for cheating. Also, let it be known that I got the #1 score out of the non-cheaters for all 5 rounds of Weboggle played during the betting period. Orbflux already relieved me of my debt to him in IRC chat, going something along the lines of "what stake are you playing at now GoT?" "15/30" "Oh, okay, well in that case, I wouldn't want to put your roll at stake, so you don't have to pay me (implied wink)" "Oh gee, thanks! (implied wink number two)". But yeah, if El D really does insist that I pay him the $500, I will. Again though, I will lose some respect for him if he does. That's really all I have to say on the subject.

GoT

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 07:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty drunk right now. But! I am completely willing to pay El Diablo if he responds to this post and demands that I transfer him the money. I will lose some respect for him in the process, and it looks like others will as well, but I will transfer him the money. Techically, there was no caveat made for cheating. Also, let it be known that I got the #1 score out of the non-cheaters for all 5 rounds of Weboggle played during the betting period. Orbflux already relieved me of my debt to him in IRC chat, going something along the lines of "what stake are you playing at now GoT?" "15/30" "Oh, okay, well in that case, I wouldn't want to put your roll at stake, so you don't have to pay me (implied wink)" "Oh gee, thanks! (implied wink number two)". But yeah, if El D really does insist that I pay him the $500, I will. Again though, I will lose some respect for him if he does. That's really all I have to say on the subject.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Flux did not relieve you of the debt. He said that you did not have to pay him right away, but the juice would start running in March. So, you still owe him $500 as well.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 07:11 AM

Flux did not relieve you of the debt. He said that you did not have to pay him right away, but the juice would start running in March. So, you still owe him $500 as well.

Hahahahaha! Okay. If he wants to come on here and say that was not said in jest, I'll take it as face value. For those of us who were in that chat (exluding you, apprently), it was obviously said as a joke and meant to be taken as such. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, orb can feel free to correct me and I'll take that as face value as well.

GoT

Marnixvdb

02-09-2005, 07:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, let it be known that I got the #1 score out of the non-cheaters for all 5 rounds of Weboggle played during the betting period.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Also let it be known that in game #1 of the bet (5 games of Weboggle5x5 for $100 each) Orbflux and Diablo both scored a humanly impossible score of 242 pts, leaving GoT third with an impressive score of ~90 pts.

Now what would you do game 2-5 if you were GoT?

Marnix

sthief09

02-09-2005, 07:28 AM

Diablo is in a tough spot here. on one hand, he probably doesn't need/want the money and I highly doubt that he had any intentions of taking it when this whole things started. but, now a lot of people have kind of peer pressured (by saying things like "I'll lose respect for Diablo if he takes the money") him about not taking the money, so he surely doesn't want to give in to this many people. I wouldn't either. it's a pride thing. plus. even if he gives the money back now, he'll still look like a dick, just a dick who gave in to peer pressure

so how about you two either play for the money for real, or GoT give Diablo some other payment, in the form of embarrassment or humor

I think this whole thing is stupid. this is what happens when you take The Diablo seriously

sthief09

02-09-2005, 07:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, let it be known that I got the #1 score out of the non-cheaters for all 5 rounds of Weboggle played during the betting period.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Also let it be known that in game #1 of the bet (5 games of Weboggle5x5 for $100 each) Orbflux and Diablo both scored a humanly impossible score of 242 pts, leaving GoT third with an impressive score of ~90 pts.

Now what would you do game 2-5 if you were GoT?

Marnix

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd keep playing, assuming the bet was off because the other two obviously "cheated"

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 07:32 AM

J_V

02-09-2005, 07:35 AM

There is no way I'd pay the bet. Not a chance. If Diablo is serious about collecting we operate under very different guidelines.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 07:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Diablo is in a tough spot here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough spot? GoT owes me $500. Simple as that. And if you think any supposed peer pressure from clowns in this thread is going to have an impact on anything I do, you're sorely mistaken.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 07:39 AM

So, you still owe him $500 as well.

Am I to take the "as well" as you want me to transfer the money to you?

GoT

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 07:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, you still owe him $500 as well.

Am I to take the "as well" as you want me to transfer the money to you?

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Pay him like this....

So then maybe GoT should stoop to El D's rules and pay him in Canadian dollars or some other $$ with an even lower rate of exchange.

I assume the deal also didn't state when the $$ had to be paid by. GoT should play by the rules and the spirit of the rules set out by ElD and pay him in 50 years when $500 buys you a stick of gum.

Perhaps they never stated how he would be paid. GoT can forward me the money and i will arrange for $500 in Canadian pennies to be sitting at my house for El D to arrange to have picked up. Im sure the rules never stated where he had to pay him.

Im sure we can come up with more prop bet angles to shoot El D style.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 07:51 AM

Hey RJ,

I appreciate the kind-spirited offer for my sake, but I'm not the kind of person to stoop to this level. If El D wants me to pay, I will pay straight up in US dollars ASAP if he so wishes, as that was the spirit of the wager. I'm not going to try to shoot angles or cheat. I'll transfer the money via Neteller, Empire, or UB as soon as I get the word from El D. Again, I appreciate the support that your offer show me, but I will not stoop to that level of angle-shooting. If El D wants me to pay, I'll pay. If El D wants a straight-up rematch for the money (as someone suggested; I forget who), I'm willing to do that as well. Whatever he wants. It's completely up to him now.

GoT

thatpfunk

02-09-2005, 07:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, flux and I were both in the zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to add anymore to this thread but the italics cracked me up. I keep thinking of the Will Ferrell SNL sketch "The H is O" and Diablo and Flux tearing up boggle. I'm weird though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 07:57 AM

You really thought your post was so great that it needed to be posted twice in the same thread?

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 07:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You really thought your post was so great that it needed to be posted twice in the same thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's drunk, maybe he never saw it the first time.

Do you need the money that bad that you're worried he won't pay?

rJ

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 08:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You really thought your post was so great that it needed to be posted twice in the same thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's drunk, maybe he never saw it the first time.

Do you need the money that bad that you're worried he won't pay?

rJ

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really dense.

rusty JEDI

02-09-2005, 08:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You really thought your post was so great that it needed to be posted twice in the same thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's drunk, maybe he never saw it the first time.

Do you need the money that bad that you're worried he won't pay?

rJ

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really dense.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

rJ

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 08:08 AM

Originally I said you would lose some respect if you didn't pay up, but now I say [censored] him, he's an [censored].

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 08:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Originally I said you would lose some respect if you didn't pay up, but now I say [censored] him, he's an [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell 'em, LAGmaniac! Man, clown city around here.

BTW, LAGmaniac and rJ, since you have such strong feelings about this matter. What do you think about all the other bets that GoT and I have had? What? You have NO IDEA AT ALL ABOUT ANY CONTEXT OR HISTORY OR BACKGROUND OR EVEN THIS ACTUAL SITUATION? OK. Just checking.

The Dude

02-09-2005, 08:18 AM

You all know the propensiy for me to embarrass GoT every opportunity I can. That said, I think El Diablo is being ridiculous if he insists on GoT paying him for this bet. More ridiculous, in fact, than Clarkmeister was being when he acted like a gine in this bet (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1144159&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1).

Come on, El Diablo. Admit you had fun dicking with him, but that you don't expect GoT to pay. Save some dignity, at least. I know that's more important to you than $500.

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 08:24 AM

Ok, ok, you got me... but it really was GoT's dead pan response that had me going, you laid it on a bit thick. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 08:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, ok, you got me... but it really was GoT's dead pan response that had me going, you laid it on a bit thick. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I was completely serious in my response to you. How you and rJ can have such strong feelings and opinions with no knowledge of the situation besides what you've read in this thread is beyond me.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 08:32 AM

What do you think about all the other bets that GoT and I have had? What? You have NO IDEA AT ALL ABOUT ANY CONTEXT OR HISTORY OR BACKGROUND OR EVEN THIS ACTUAL SITUATION? OK. Just checking.

When have we ever bet on anything ever before??? I'm still pretty drunk, so I might be forgetting something, but I'm almost positive we never have before. Am I wrong? Also, you still haven't answered whether you want me to tranfer to you or not. Do you? Also, I'm really drunk. Also, alcohol.

GoT

sthief09

02-09-2005, 08:32 AM

ok the big question now is who's going to take the $3.80 hit for the NETeller transfer? should GoT have to send 503.80, or should Diablo be content with $496.20?

MicroBob

02-09-2005, 08:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!"

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this caveman know your name?

MicroBob

02-09-2005, 08:38 AM

I agree that T-Wolves are pretty weak.

Grizzlies positively destroyed them last night!! Great fun to watch!! Go Grizz!!

Michael Davis

02-09-2005, 08:38 AM

5. Bear right into the I-210 W entry ramp to Pasadena - go 37 mi
6. Take the I-5 N ramp to Sacramento - go 0.6 mi
7. Bear left onto the Autos ramp - go 0.2 mi
8. Merge into I-5 N - go 284 mi
9. Continue on I-580 W toward Tracy/San Francisco - go 62 mi
10. Take the I-80 W ramp to San Francisco - go 7.9 mi

sthief09

02-09-2005, 08:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Diablo is in a tough spot here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough spot? GoT owes me $500. Simple as that. And if you think any supposed peer pressure from clowns in this thread is going to have an impact on anything I do, you're sorely mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think peer pressure will make you do anything. but I don't think you want the money. you're the same guy who told Bruiser you wanted half his added future profits for coaching him and then later admitted you were just seeing how badly he wanted it. maybe I'm a bad judge of character, but I'm calling BS here

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 08:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I was completely serious in my response to you. How you and rJ can have such strong feelings and opinions with no knowledge of the situation besides what you've read in this thread is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize we we're the only ones in this thread that were of the opinion that you di*ked him out of $500.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 08:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!"

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this caveman know your name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, an intelligent response.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 08:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Diablo is in a tough spot here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough spot? GoT owes me $500. Simple as that. And if you think any supposed peer pressure from clowns in this thread is going to have an impact on anything I do, you're sorely mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think peer pressure will make you do anything. but I don't think you want the money. you're the same guy who told Bruiser you wanted half his added future profits for coaching him and then later admitted you were just seeing how badly he wanted it. maybe I'm a bad judge of character, but I'm calling BS here

[/ QUOTE ]

No BS. I stand by everything I said there.

sthief09

02-09-2005, 08:49 AM

it hasn't, but it still doesn't

BeerMoney

02-09-2005, 09:00 AM

Whatever dude.. You fukkin' cheated and its gross. If you don't know the difference, (Which you obviously don't), then I feel bad for you.

Lawrence Ng

02-09-2005, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This analogy isn't complete. For it to be so, the caveman has to challenge you to a rematch.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

Caveman said travel, not physically run by foot.

Lawrence

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 09:35 AM

Why didn't you just post as GoT?

I'm not that lame and you know it.

GoT

Lawrence Ng

02-09-2005, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The second one is dumb because the "caveman" is not familiar with cars, therefore is betting/playing at a handicap.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a brand new poker player who has never even seen/played/touched cards in his life sits down at my 20/40 game and plays every hand, calls 3-bet raises on the turn with King high drawing dead of course..is he hand-capped too?

Prop bets are stated as is, as is the dumbass newb who sits in my poker game dropping 2 racks in half an hour. Hard lessons learned.

Lawrence

thatpfunk

02-09-2005, 09:52 AM

It is still a bad analogy... A caveman would have no idea that a car even existed when proposed the bet.

I am sure that GoT was/is aware that there would be a program that would allow you to cheat at webboggle.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 09:57 AM

I am sure that GoT was/is aware that there would be a program that would allow you to cheat at webboggle.

While I wasn't aware that one existed on the web within easy access to anybody willing to google, I was warned by someone that such a prog would be easy to make given Boggle's simplicity. I would never have thought, though, that El D would use such a prog to play the game competitively.

GoT

BeerMoney

02-09-2005, 10:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure that GoT was/is aware that there would be a program that would allow you to cheat at webboggle.

While I wasn't aware that one existed on the web within easy access to anybody willing to google, I was warned by someone that such a prog would be easy to make given Boggle's simplicity. I would never have thought, though, that El D would use such a prog to play the game competitively.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor choice of words.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 10:04 AM

Poor choice of words.

Yeah, good point I guess. You know what I mean though.

GoT

Bluffoon

02-09-2005, 10:21 AM

As a joke this wouldn't even be funny. You can justify it with all the twisted logic you want but it is not even close to being ok.

Got deserves an apology.

AJo Go All In

02-09-2005, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When have we ever bet on anything ever before??? I'm still pretty drunk, so I might be forgetting something, but I'm almost positive we never have before. Am I wrong? Also, you still haven't answered whether you want me to tranfer to you or not. Do you? Also, I'm really drunk. Also, alcohol.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, are you drunk? sweet!!

Tosh

02-09-2005, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker online, I do it without the aid of pokertracker or pokerview or gametime or any of those aids. You and GoT both use these computer aids to your poker game, right? Aids that give you an advantage over many of your opponents that don't use them? Are you guys cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, here we go again, same argument as general forum a few months back. Why does everyone label this as cheating, its against no rules that they obviously set. What makes it cheating? The fact that GoT didn't do it as well?

jesusarenque

02-09-2005, 10:30 AM

This is a joke. No way GOT should pay.

Wayfare

02-09-2005, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Let me give you another example. Let's say I run into a caveman on the street. Caveman says to me (unprompted) "Hey Diablo, I bet you $100 I can travel five miles faster than you!" I take him up on his offer. He starts running, faster than I've ever seen a human travel. Wow, that is one mf'in fast caveman. I jump in my car and blow by him. He finally gets to the end and says "WHAT THE F IS THAT THING DIABLO?" "A car, caveman, a car." Did I cheat? No, the caveman just made a stupid prop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a perfect analogy. Those who make prop bets that do not incorporate enough rules to ensure fairness do not deserve a fair competition.

It seems to me that it is completely up to ElD whether GoT should pay or not. For the less bright on this board, let me spell out the sequence action-by-action (and please correct me if I am wrong):

1: They made a contract to play WeBoggle using "any means necessary." That's what a prop bet is, a contract. Both agreed to this contract in its exact wording. Note that the contract did not outlaw any of the methods ElD used to win.

2: Diablo won. He did not violate any terms of the contract, which would make the contract invalid.

3: GoT therefore owes ElD $500.

If anything, RJ et. al should be thanking ElD for teaching them a free lession about prop bets. Don't agree to one you don't understand, or you will probably lose money.

MMMMMM

02-09-2005, 10:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When I play poker online, I do it without the aid of pokertracker or pokerview or gametime or any of those aids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear, hear...so do I.

I suggest that those using such aids whilst playing online are just pussies.

Gamblor

02-09-2005, 10:37 AM

When Amarillo slim wins a ping pong match with the frying pan he'd been practicing with for a month, nobody calls him a fraud.

If El D didn't violate the terms of the agreed bet, he wins the bet. Whether they want to pay or whatever arrangement they have, who cares?

Seems to me that this is the same thing.

Yeti

02-09-2005, 10:42 AM

Some of the analogies people are spouting in this thread are hilarious.

Please try harder.

West

02-09-2005, 11:01 AM

I think this is another sucky analogy....

West

02-09-2005, 11:04 AM

For those of who have NO IDEA AT ALL ABOUT ANY CONTEXT OR HISTORY OR BACKGROUND OR EVEN THIS ACTUAL SITUATION, like myself, but have wasted time reading this thread, maybe you would care to fill us in? Cuz this thread makes you look pretty weak.

BeerMoney

02-09-2005, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When Amarillo slim wins a ping pong match with the frying pan he'd been practicing with for a month, nobody calls him a fraud.

If El D didn't violate the terms of the agreed bet, he wins the bet. Whether they want to pay or whatever arrangement they have, who cares?

Seems to me that this is the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you don't understand this, but there's a difference between immoral and illegal. I could take naked pictures of a girl and place them on the internet, and it might not be illegal.. But its certainly not OK.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 11:10 AM

They made a contract to play WeBoggle using "any means necessary."

I've seen this specific phrase used more than once in this thread. This was not part of our agreement. It was more along the lines of "Wanna play Weboggle for money?" "Sure, how much?" "$500/game?" "Sure, 5 games to start?" "Okay."

Again, not saying I shouldn't or won't pay. Just setting the record straight on that particular phrase that's being used here for whatever reason.

GoT

Wayfare

02-09-2005, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They made a contract to play WeBoggle using "any means necessary."

I've seen this specific phrase used more than once in this thread. This was not part of our agreement. It was more along the lines of "Wanna play Weboggle for money?" "Sure, how much?" "$500/game?" "Sure, 5 games to start?" "Okay."

Again, not saying I shouldn't or won't pay. Just setting the record straight on that particular phrase that's being used here for whatever reason.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I read that from earlier in the thread and incorporated into my scenerio -- it really doesn't change anything substantive about the contract.

What I suspect is that Diablo really doesn't want the money, and that he set this up as a test/lesson about prop bets. He cheats and looks smart, you aknowledge that he is smart and no longer owe money. I could be wrong.

I for one am shocked that so many people have jumped onto the "you didn't play fair and therefore no money is owed" bandwagon. This is so far removed from the actual mechanics of contracts (and by extension prop bets) that it really opened my eyes.

razor

02-09-2005, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you're the same guy who told Bruiser you wanted half his added future profits for coaching him and then later admitted you were just seeing how badly he wanted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are remembering that thread correctly.

lucas9000

02-09-2005, 11:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I could take naked pictures of a girl and place them on the internet, and it might not be illegal.. But its certainly not OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

says you

lucas9000

02-09-2005, 11:27 AM

maybe i'm missing something here, but how is this anyone's business other than el d and got's?

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"you didn't play fair and therefore no money is owed" bandwagon. This is so far removed from the actual mechanics of contracts (and by extension prop bets) that it really opened my eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it isn't owed just that El Diablo took advantage of the loose wording of their agreement. If he was some random guy whom GoT had no reason to trust, then GoT got what he deserved by not getting strict wording on the terms of the bet.

But that's not what happened.

GoT knows and trusts El D. and El D. took advantage of this. While El D. didn't violate the terms of their "contract" he certainly violated the spirit of it as well as GoT's trust. That, IMO makes him an a**hole, and while he is technically owed the money, I wouldn't feel at all bad if he never recieved it.

ChicagoTroy

02-09-2005, 11:50 AM

I heard that the devil don't bet with Amarillo Slim.

But he's up for a game of Boggle with GoT.

Wayfare

02-09-2005, 11:51 AM

I would say smarta** more than a**hole.

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would say smarta** more than a**hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah if he just trying to prove a point and doesn't intend to hold GoT to the bet. That doesn't seem to be his stance so far though.

Gamblor

02-09-2005, 12:02 PM

I'm sure you don't understand this, but there's a difference between immoral and illegal.

Give me a fuckin break.

I understand that when the bet was made, GoT wasn't expecting El Diablo to use a boggle engine.

I also understand that El Diablo was planning to use the boggle engine.

But this isn't a morality question. This is a "is the bet honourable" (as in, should it be paid) and the answer is an obvious yes.

Whether El Diablo is an [censored] or not, I frankly don't give a rat's ass. Amarillo Slim touches little girls, for all we know El Diablo does the same, but I'm not interested in that.

We're trying to determine whether or not GoT owes El D $500 and the answer is an obvious yes.

razor

02-09-2005, 12:03 PM

the guy's nick is El Diablo, no elaboration should be necessary...

Michael Davis

02-09-2005, 12:05 PM

"Whether El Diablo is an [censored] or not, I frankly don't give a rat's ass. Amarillo Slim touches little girls, for all we know El Diablo does the same, but I'm not interested in that."

Why?

-Michael

elwoodblues

02-09-2005, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I read that from earlier in the thread and incorporated into my scenerio -- it really doesn't change anything substantive about the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it kind of does. In the "any means necessary" scenario, you are changing the rules of the game (which I assume, thought it could be a poor assumption, prohibit cheat programs.)

Do you see a difference between:

Wanna play poker --- you can win the pot by any means necessary. Player then deals from the bottom of the deck and wins.

Wanna play poker (no reference to any means necessary.) Player then deals from the bottom of the deck.

In the first you are asking to go beyond the borders of the game, in the second it is implicit that the rules of the game (i.e. no cheating) apply.

ethan

02-09-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe i'm missing something here, but how is this anyone's business other than el d and got's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to OOT

sfer

02-09-2005, 12:14 PM

http://www.westfieldnetwork.com/malcontentsimages/200209/ucl.jpg

I don't understand your "internal combustion engines." I'm just a caveman.

partygirluk

02-09-2005, 12:16 PM

cheat
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
v. tr.
To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
To elude; escape: cheat death.

v. intr.
To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
Informal. To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.

n.
An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
One who cheats; a swindler.
Law. Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
Botany. An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

So whether Diablo cheated or not, depends on the definition. He certainly "deceived by trickery", but did not "violate rules deliberately".

I think the latter definition is more accurate, and he did not cheat. He certainly did nothing illegal, and GOT owes him $500.

Whether he acted immorally or not, is a different question (to which the answer is surely, yes).

Edited to add:

im·mor·al
adj.
Contrary to established moral principles

West

02-09-2005, 12:26 PM

You:

[ QUOTE ]
Those who make prop bets that do not incorporate enough rules to ensure fairness do not deserve a fair competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice.

You:

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that it is completely up to ElD whether GoT should pay or not. For the less bright on this board, let me spell out the sequence action-by-action (and please correct me if I am wrong):

1: They made a contract to play WeBoggle using "any means necessary." That's what a prop bet is, a contract. Both agreed to this contract in its exact wording. Note that the contract did not outlaw any of the methods ElD used to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

GoT:

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen this specific phrase used more than once in this thread. This was not part of our agreement. It was more along the lines of "Wanna play Weboggle for money?" "Sure, how much?" "$500/game?" "Sure, 5 games to start?" "Okay."

Again, not saying I shouldn't or won't pay. Just setting the record straight on that particular phrase that's being used here for whatever reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

You:

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I read that from earlier in the thread and incorporated into my scenerio -- it really doesn't change anything substantive about the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorporated into your scenario?? Wow, that's funny stuff! You decide to clarify the situation, for all the "less bright" readers who didn't automatically assume that the second hand information on "by any means necessary" was necessarily correct, and instead of being a primary source who knows exactly what happened ("let me spell out the sequence action by action"), it turns out you actually have no idea what you are talking about! If I was Chris Jericho, I'd tell you to keep your big mouth shut, you sanctimonius son of a bitch!

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 12:27 PM

Just so I understand this:

Diablo challenges GoT to some weboggle for money.

There are no special stipulations, just like a "want to play weboggle for money" type prop.

Diablo then uses a software aid to help him beat GoT.

A bunch of crappy analogies and arguments follow.

If this is the case, the analogy to look at would be chess.

A challenges B to a chess match on FICS, say.

A uses ChessMaster whatever thousand they are up to to pummel B.

Is this cheating?

Debatable, but generally one would assume that the challenge did not allow for software aids or having another player advise you while playing. These are reasonable assumptions to make IMO, so without some suggestion that there may be some augmentation to natural ability, player A's action at least nullifies the bet or more reasonably forfeits it.

B Dids

02-09-2005, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
that he set this up as a test/lesson about prop bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding.

Never make prop bets with Diablo.

Also, never trust Diablo and/or Flux. Ask Vagos.

B Dids

02-09-2005, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Debatable, but generally one would assume that the challenge did not allow for software aids or having another player advise you while playing. These are reasonable assumptions to make IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the object lesson here is that "No, these are NOT reasonable assumptions to make."

nolanfan34

02-09-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, never trust Diablo and/or Flux.

[/ QUOTE ]

He still owes me either $1 or a drink from last year's baseball playoffs. Does this mean I won't get paid?

I still think this whole thread might be a joke for the clueless like myself, who might fall for it. If El D promises to give his weboggle engine code away in exchange for a good essay, then I'll know the gig is up.

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 12:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Debatable, but generally one would assume that the challenge did not allow for software aids or having another player advise you while playing. These are reasonable assumptions to make IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the object lesson here is that "No, these are NOT reasonable assumptions to make."

[/ QUOTE ]

(IANAL) Well, I didn't want to get too much into it, but in a lot of situations there are assumptions you can make from a contract perspective. Basically, a wager is a contract, and contract law offers certain protections to the participants in a contract. (Of course, if the subject of the contract is not legal, the contract is considered void.) For instance, if you and I go into business together, there is an implied understanding that neither of us will do anything to knowingly hurt that business. This does not have to be written in the contract because it is covered by law. Another thing: you cannot bury important details in the fine print. (Well, you can, but if the court deems it incorragable, the contract can be voided.)

At any rate, the bottom line is that you can make reasonable assumptions when entering into things.

B00T

02-09-2005, 12:40 PM

Can you guys settle this like real men please...

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/jerryspringer/images/6.jpg

B Dids

02-09-2005, 12:43 PM

You're trying to apply contract law to a situation without a contract. You're trying to apply legalese to a wager of debatable legality in the first place.

It's impossible to argue that the use of aids was precluded by the terms of the original agreement.

Yes, you could argue that GoT got hustled. And you can debate the morals of that act. It may or may not have been a shitty thing to do.

However, it's also undeniable that as a result of that hustle GoT owes Diablo $500.

Here is the point. Good prop betters don't make bets that they don't expect to have a huge edge in. Diablo is a good prop better, as such, when he proposes something, think twice.

B Dids

02-09-2005, 12:44 PM

Like real men, in the bathroom, with their pants still buckled.

Inthacup

02-09-2005, 12:52 PM

Diablo didn't violate any of the rules mutually agreed upon.

GoT underestimated his opponent, Diablo took advantage. Simple as that.

Regardless of whether this actually happened, it's a good learning experience for a lot of people concerning prop bets. Anyone who thinks this is cheating has a lot to learn.

Senor Cardgage

02-09-2005, 12:52 PM

The use of scripts to find words on the board is specifically listed as a form of cheating at WEBoggle.

Whether or not there was a specific stipulation as to the use of such programs in the initial bet, El Diablo did not play by the rules of the game and thus is owed nothing.

EDIT: Just to elaborate, if you bet on a hole of golf and proceed to carry the ball from the tee to the hole, you did not "play golf." Similarly, as El D did not follow the rules of weboggle, he did not "play weboggle" in the way defined by the bet.

B00T

02-09-2005, 12:55 PM

exactly, unbuckling the belt is totally unnecessary...

Clarkmeister

02-09-2005, 12:55 PM

I can't help but wonder what GoT was thinking after losing game 1 272-90 (or whatever it was), and why he agreed to play a "game 2".

BeerMoney

02-09-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The use of scripts to find words on the board is specifically listed as a form of cheating at WEBoggle.

Whether or not there was a specific stipulation as to the use of such programs in the initial bet, El Diablo did not play by the rules of the game and thus is owed nothing.

EDIT: Just to elaborate, if you bet on a hole of golf and proceed to carry the ball from the tee to the hole, you did not "play golf." Similarly, as El D did not follow the rules of weboggle, he did not "play weboggle" in the way defined by the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, doesn't the question now become whether or not he owes GoT money?

astroglide

02-09-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
think back to your childhood and how you always heard your mom come into the house through the back door late at night

[/ QUOTE ]

childhood? i came in your mom's back door late last night.

elwoodblues

02-09-2005, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to apply contract law to a situation without a contract. You're trying to apply legalese to a wager of debatable legality in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most states, a wager like this is perfectly legal (and the bet itself would be a contract.)

[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to argue that the use of aids was precluded by the terms of the original agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the fact that aids are not allowed in the game and they agreed to play the game.

Sponger15SB

02-09-2005, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but wonder what GoT was thinking after losing game 1 272-90 (or whatever it was), and why he agreed to play a "game 2".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I would have stopped immediatly and then told them I'd play game 2 in 50 years.

Evan

02-09-2005, 01:04 PM

He said that he assumed the bet was off since Diablo was clearly using some sort of computer aid.

Sponger15SB

02-09-2005, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The use of scripts to find words on the board is specifically listed as a form of cheating at WEBoggle.

Whether or not there was a specific stipulation as to the use of such programs in the initial bet, El Diablo did not play by the rules of the game and thus is owed nothing.

EDIT: Just to elaborate, if you bet on a hole of golf and proceed to carry the ball from the tee to the hole, you did not "play golf." Similarly, as El D did not follow the rules of weboggle, he did not "play weboggle" in the way defined by the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet you $100 says El Diablo is willing to dispute this.

Senor Cardgage

02-09-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll bet you $100 says El Diablo is willing to dispute this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah. Not that it makes him any less wrong.

Wayfare

02-09-2005, 01:12 PM

Ok, I went to my boss and asked him whether the wager was legal. He said that in order for a contract to be valid, there must be a "meeting of the minds" of both participants, i.e. both participants must understand what they are agreeing to. This appears not to have happened.

Furthermore, my boss said that if the agreement was that they both agreed to "play" weboggle, that understanding includes the notion that they personally (and not a computer) will forumlate their answers.

So, in summary, what I said before was completely contrary to a more authoritative opinion that I recieved later.

Jezebel

02-09-2005, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The use of scripts to find words on the board is specifically listed as a form of cheating at WEBoggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually considered using this line of logic. However, using scripts is not specifically mentioned in the rules section of the website: http://weboggle.shackworks.com/rules.html

The author of Weboggle mentions that scripts are possible to create as a cheat in another section of the website that describes the history of the game. Since it is not specifically mentioned in the rules, I think this argument is not valid.

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to apply contract law to a situation without a contract. You're trying to apply legalese to a wager of debatable legality in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

No and no. It IS a contract, that's what wagers are. (Contracts do not have to be written, and in some cases not even spoken.)

I am not trying to apply legalese, I am merely pointing out that there are situations where you can make assumptions, and this may be one of them. I was not there, I don't know how the bet got made or how things went down. I think the idea that if you don't explicity say something is off limits then it is fair is just silly. We have already seen examples in the thread where people proposed things like paying in 20 years or something because terms of payment were not established. That is as ridiculous as saying if GoT had a friend physically interupt Diablo's internet connection so he couldn't finish the game that it would have been fair.

daveymck

02-09-2005, 01:21 PM

There are two lessons from this

1 It seems that just about evry internet game has some sort of cheat program for it, I am sure poker is the same I just dont think its public domain yet, I hear all the incomplete info/learning arguments but am still not convinced that there is not bots or other programs out there being used to win by a incredibly small amount of people out there.

2 Dont take on a bet (particulary online) without knowing the full stipulation and understanding of the rules (and particulary online check there is not hacks or assist programs for it).

I am unsure how well GOT and El Dialo get on and if they are friends or people who have posted regular on a message board, if they are friends then its a shitty thing to have done (unless in a joke knowing he will not take up the payment, or a series where they have got one over each other) if its the latter then it proves dont trust people you barely know over the net when it comes to money.

jesusarenque

02-09-2005, 01:30 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
You're trying to apply contract law to a situation without a contract. You're trying to apply legalese to a wager of debatable legality in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most states, a wager like this is perfectly legal (and the bet itself would be a contract.)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
It's impossible to argue that the use of aids was precluded by the terms of the original agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the fact that aids are not allowed in the game and they agreed to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a valid contract and would not be enforceable in a court of law. The "reasonable expectations" doctrine is one reason.

meep_42

02-09-2005, 01:40 PM

This seems in the same grey area as GoT not waking up The Dude for the marathon challenge.

Diablo won, it's not clean, it's not honorable, but he's got $500 in his pocket that he didn't have yesterday.

-d

astroglide

02-09-2005, 01:47 PM

my 0.02:

- if a situation is unresolved, you don't call people out on it. making this post was a kneejerk response to "what happened," but it is clear that there is disagreement and a lack of communication on both parties. the bet was between GoT and diablo. any disputes should have been resolved between them, just as the bet was made between them with no 3rd-party interference. if GoT felt he was wronged, wanted to be vindictive, or whatever it was his and only his place to "tell on him." regardless of the outcome, you are lame and out of your jurisdiction schneids.

- if the words 'by any means necessary' or something to that effect are actually used in a bet for something like playing weboggle, i think it's pretty obvious that what would normally be considered cheating is going to occur. things above the standard game rules are not specified in a wagering situation unless somebody is trying to insure an angle isn't shot or somebody is trying to shoot an angle. whether or not those words were said, i have no idea.

fryKing

02-09-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your "internal combustion engines." I'm just a caveman.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is one thing I do know - we must do everything in our power to lower the Capital Gains Tax. Thank you!

Boris

02-09-2005, 02:00 PM

I don't know exactly what happened here. I'm guessing that GoT and El Diablo made a wager about who was the master of Weboggle. Assuming that is the case, if GoT wants to get out of the bet because El Diablo used a computer program, then GoT is SOL. It is obvious to anyone who has played the game that many people use some kind of webboggle solver. GoT is an experienced prop bettor so it's not like he is some naive highschool chick on her prom night. If GoT didn't specify that software help was prohibited, then screw him. He [censored] up and should pay and stop bitching about it.

Diplomat

02-09-2005, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to apply contract law to a situation without a contract. You're trying to apply legalese to a wager of debatable legality in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

No and no. It IS a contract, that's what wagers are. (Contracts do not have to be written, and in some cases not even spoken.)

I am not trying to apply legalese, I am merely pointing out that there are situations where you can make assumptions, and this may be one of them. I was not there, I don't know how the bet got made or how things went down. I think the idea that if you don't explicity say something is off limits then it is fair is just silly. We have already seen examples in the thread where people proposed things like paying in 20 years or something because terms of payment were not established. That is as ridiculous as saying if GoT had a friend physically interupt Diablo's internet connection so he couldn't finish the game that it would have been fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to make this a legal debate, but even with assumptions, prop. bets cannot be contracts for a number of reasons, such as the absense of consideration.

-Diplomat

willie

02-09-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
did you ignore the very strong caveman analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't really know what is going on here, so i just thumbed through diablo's post, and i must say

i laughed my ass off at the at the caveman analogy.

J.R.

02-09-2005, 02:54 PM

ignoring other concerns, why can't a prop bet be viewed as dueling unilateral contracts, I pay you x if you perform y (by beating me), you pay me x if i perform z (by beating you).

DesertCat

02-09-2005, 02:56 PM

El Diablo went down to Carpal /Tunnel,
He was looking for a prop bet to steal
He was in a bind cause he was way behind
And he was willing to make a deal
When he came across this young man
Playing some internet boggle and playing it hot
And El Diablo jumped up on a hickory stump
And said, "Boy" let me tell you what
I guess you didn't know it
But I'm a boggle player too
And if you'd care to take a dare
I'll make a bet with you
Now you played pretty good boggle, boy
But give El Diablo his due
I bet a rack of gold against your soul
Cause I think I'm better than you
The boy said "My name's GuyOnTilt
And it might be a sin
But I'll take you bet, your gonna regret
Cause I'm the best that's ever been"

GuyOnTilt warm up your pentium
And play your boggle hard
Cause hell's broke loose in Carpal/Tunnel
But El Diablo got some help
And if you win
You get this shiny rack of gold
But if you lose, El Diablo gets your soul

El Diablo opened up his browser
And he said "I'll start this show"
And fire flew from his finger tips
As he melted his keyboard
Then he opened a second browser window
And it made a evil hiss
And a band of demons joined in
And very shortly the game came to an end

When El Diablo finished Johnny said
Well you're, pretty good old son
But sit down in that chair right there
And let's play another one

Fire on the mountain run boys run
Diablo's in the house at the rising sun
chicken in the bread pan picking out dough
Granny does your dog bite no-child-no

GuyOnTilt bowed his head
Because he knew that he'd been beat
And he laid that rack of gold
On the ground at El Diablo's feet
GuyOnTilt said "El Diablo don't ever come on back
even if you ever want to try again
If I had done told you once, before you got so rich
Using electronic aids is cheating, you goddamn son of a bitch

Fire on the mountain run boys run
El Diablo's in the house at the rising sun
chicken in the bread pan picking out dough
Granny will your dog bite no-Child-no

elwoodblues

02-09-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This seems in the same grey area as GoT not waking up The Dude for the marathon challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even remotely similar.

Schneids

02-09-2005, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
my 0.02:

- if a situation is unresolved, you don't call people out on it. making this post was a kneejerk response to "what happened," but it is clear that there is disagreement and a lack of communication on both parties. the bet was between GoT and diablo. any disputes should have been resolved between them, just as the bet was made between them with no 3rd-party interference. if GoT felt he was wronged, wanted to be vindictive, or whatever it was his and only his place to "tell on him." regardless of the outcome, you are lame and out of your jurisdiction schneids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd speculate that Diablo has enjoyed this thread as much as anybody since he is big into semantics s[/i]hit and proving himself right etc etc.

As a general statement, I disagree that something like this should be out of my jurisdiction to comment on in a public forum that loves to gossip, as it is; though that is obvious by the fact I initially posted. I do believe the tone of my first post was more of a "laughing at" Diablo then a "calling him out" nature.

I really could care less whether Diablo collects money from GoT and I wasn't intending to try to provoke change; even if I personally have an opinion on the issue at hand.

pokerjo22

02-09-2005, 03:06 PM

Cool, a nice juicy thread to drink my morning coffee over.

I think the talk of morals etc. is a bit overdone.

This is all in the nature of prop bets. There's always two risks - one is that you'll be scammed, the other is that you won't be paid. GoT got scammed, and frankly no-one other than LD would probably begrudge him if he didn't pay up.

The only problem with not paying up is that it becomes harder to make subsequent prop bets, but given that GoT doesn't look like he's very good at making prop bets, its probably +EV for him /images/graemlins/smile.gif

IMHO prop bets are a law unto themselves. Just like bluffing in poker doesn't make you a bad person, neither does cheating (or at least breaking the spirit) of a prop bet, nor reneging on the bet if you find you were cheated.

Just my two cents (still currently owed money from several friends who bet on a Kerry win).

BottlesOf

02-09-2005, 03:06 PM

What the [censored] is the point of playing weboggle with "some kind of webboggle solver?" How is that fun or worthwhile in any way?

elwoodblues

02-09-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bets cannot be contracts for a number of reasons, such as the absense of consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So when I go to a casino and drop a quarter in the slot machine...win a huge jackpot and the casino refuses to pay, that's not a breach of contract?

daryn

02-09-2005, 03:07 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
What the [censored] is the point of playing weboggle with "some kind of webboggle solver?" How is that fun or worthwhile in any way?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's fun to win $500

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Not to make this a legal debate, but even with assumptions, prop. bets cannot be contracts for a number of reasons, such as the absense of consideration.

-Diplomat

[/ QUOTE ]

IANAL, but isn't the obligation to pay based on the outcome consideration? There is certainly bargain. Meh, I need to go back and reread my business law book, I should know this sort of thing off the top of my head.

daryn

02-09-2005, 03:11 PM

every once and a while, a goood thread comes along and exposes piss poor logic. this thread is doing just that.

Boris

02-09-2005, 03:13 PM

There's logic in this thread?

Tyler Durden

02-09-2005, 03:15 PM

daryn

02-09-2005, 03:16 PM

didn't miss it. i thought better of it.

B00T

02-09-2005, 03:19 PM

Nice Charlie Daniels refernece there...it didnt go unnoticed.

sthief09

02-09-2005, 03:23 PM

personally I'm glad you started this thread. it's Diablo at his finest

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe the tone of my first post was more of a "laughing at" Diablo then a "calling him out" nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously BS.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear Diablo is too pussy to try to beat people straight up in bets and has to rely on cheating to win.

What a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how this isn't calling him out.

Also, astroglide is correct.

GuyOnTilt

02-09-2005, 03:29 PM

In response to some comments:

I can't help but wonder what GoT was thinking after losing game 1 272-90 (or whatever it was), and why he agreed to play a "game 2".

We had already agreed to play a 5 game match. Personally, I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I backed out of a bet that I had offered, could you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif (PS. I'll be in LV this weekend.)

I am unsure how well GOT and El Dialo get on and if they are friends or people who have posted regular on a message board, if they are friends then its a shitty thing to have done (unless in a joke knowing he will not take up the payment, or a series where they have got one over each other) if its the latter then it proves dont trust people you barely know over the net when it comes to money.

We're definitely not friends. He is someone who I thought I could trust to not "cheat" though, which is nothing against him. Just my poor judgement.

if a situation is unresolved, you don't call people out on it. making this post was a kneejerk response to "what happened," but it is clear that there is disagreement and a lack of communication on both parties. the bet was between GoT and diablo. any disputes should have been resolved between them, just as the bet was made between them with no 3rd-party interference. if GoT felt he was wronged, wanted to be vindictive, or whatever it was his and only his place to "tell on him." regardless of the outcome, you are lame and out of your jurisdiction schneids.

I tried having a private convo with El D about this to make sure we were on the same page after the fact, and he made it very clear in that brief private chat that he wanted this thing hashed out in public. He refused to talk about it privately and only wanted to have it discussed in a public arena. Given that, Schneids was definitely not out of line posting this here, regardless of what his intentions were.

He [censored] up and should pay and stop bitching about it.

Bitching? When in this thread has there been any bitching about this from me? I think I've been (or I've tried to be anyway) open-minded and cooperative with regards to this whole thing. I've offered to pay more than once, and have made it clear that I think Diablo should be given his money if he wants it. Never have I stated or even alluded that I don't think I should have to honor the bet.

GoT

Tyler Durden

02-09-2005, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All i know about the situation is what has come up in this thread.

I think what El Diablo alleged to do is sick. No Hounour, No integrity.

I think all those that hang off El Diablo's cock would have a big change in opinion if GoT had done it to El D.

rJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Best post of the thread and I agree 100%, esp. with that last sentence. Good job killer.

partygirluk

02-09-2005, 03:34 PM

El D is just fooling around. No way he will take the $500.

LAGmaniac

02-09-2005, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is all in the nature of prop bets. There's always two risks - one is that you'll be scammed, the other is that you won't be paid....
IMHO prop bets are a law unto themselves. Just like bluffing in poker doesn't make you a bad person, neither does cheating (or at least breaking the spirit) of a prop bet, nor reneging on the bet if you find you were cheated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you summed this thread up nicely Jo, I agree wholeheartedly. If El D. can't be expected to act honorably, then I don't see why GoT should have to.

Macdaddy Warsaw

02-09-2005, 03:41 PM

GoT should pay if Diablo wants him to pay. It's weak, though. We should all stop being Diablo's friend, heh.

astroglide

02-09-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
didn't miss it. i thought better of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

two thumbs up

Inthacup

02-09-2005, 03:46 PM

killer?? lmfao. nice pet name.

BottlesOf

02-09-2005, 04:12 PM

Right, I mean besides that. Boris seemed to indicate that a lot of people use this. Why would anyone want to do this unless they had a bet with someone who didn't know about such a tool?

BottlesOf

02-09-2005, 04:14 PM

While this may not be techincally cheating, it is very shitty, IMO.

offTopic

02-09-2005, 05:02 PM

http://uploadyourimages.com/img/326412boggle.jpg

TimM

02-09-2005, 05:03 PM

You probably could have saved $500 worth of your time by just paying him already.

Boris

02-09-2005, 05:17 PM

There's a sucker born every minute.

partygirluk

02-09-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All i know about the situation is what has come up in this thread.

I think what El Diablo alleged to do is sick. No Hounour, No integrity.

I think all those that hang off El Diablo's cock would have a big change in opinion if GoT had done it to El D.

rJ

[/ QUOTE ]

Best post of the thread and I agree 100%, esp. with that last sentence. Good job killer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with El D severely pwning you in your Jennicide chat-up tread?

Sephus

02-09-2005, 05:24 PM

my .02:

im in the "El D did not 'play' webboggle" camp. it's just as much diablo's fault that he did not define the terms well enough as it is GoTs.

i'll bet if you take a survey about what it means to "play" the game, most people will agree that diablo didn't. since the meanings of words are determined by the people who use them, it's reasonable to say that GoT's understanding of the meaning of "playing the game" might be the "correct" one.

daryn

02-09-2005, 05:40 PM

this whole thread is stupid. have you guys ever heard of stupid bar bets? like, "oh i can drink 2 beers before you drink 2 shots. but you can't touch my glass and i can't touch yours." etc.

they are all worded in a way such that one guy cannot win. that's the way they go. you are a fool and a mark for accepting such bets.

this was one of those bets, quite obviously.

was it underhanded? obviously you idiots! does GoT owe diablo $500? again, obviously you idiots.

pokerjo22

02-09-2005, 05:42 PM

Can GoT stiff him, obviously you idiot.

Benal

02-09-2005, 05:49 PM

I say blah

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 05:51 PM

So, daryn, if I challenged you to a game of golf and after you hit your first shot simply walked up to the hole and dropped the ball in and continued to do so on each hole, would you pay me? I didn't follow the rules of golf and Diablo didn't follow the rule of WEBoggle.

So get his cock out of your mouth before you choke to death.

pshreck

02-09-2005, 05:52 PM

Daryn is bring up good points about the 'culture' of prop bets. The nature of prop bets is really to often find the trick way to win.

However, a key thing to remember is there is no legal enforcability in any of these wagers.

Secondly, the agreement is similar to a 'gentleman's' agreement, because both are really agreeing to the wager based on the other's terms. I think there is a solid argument that part of the 'gentleman's' aspect to this agreement is that you must 'play' with your own skills. I can't really define play in this sense, and I don't know what the wording was in their agreement, but I would say under many circumstances in my mind, El Diablo broke the terms of a gentleman's agreement.

In defense of myself and El Diablo, I don't know the culture of higher stakes prop bets, so this is speculation.

What I do know is everything is based on words and a general agreement and trust in the other person. Without a written contract, there are so many interpretable ways to cheat that the 'culture' of prop bets have to have some level of assumption/honesty to them.

crash

02-09-2005, 05:56 PM

You seem to be implying that as long as a person doesn't specifically violate what was said in the bet, then no cheating occurred.

Let's say two people are good chess players. They both gamble a lot and have big egos. They agree to play for $100 per game (live, not on the internet). They don't say anything much besides "100 bucks a game". They sit down at the chess club to play, and one dude has a tiny video in his glasses, and a tiny earpiece. His friend, sitting at home, sees the board and asks the computer what to do.

Does the loser owe the cheater the money?

Do all bets like this count as "prop bets"?

What if a weightlifter says "I bet you 10,000 I can bench more than you", the other agrees then breaks the guy's hand? Nothing was done that violated the terms. Ridiculous, I know, but some things are implied. I have no opinion on what was implied in the boggle case, though.

I'm not saying this is similar to the boggle issue, I just question whether every time the winner doesn't contradict what was specifically said before the bet, the loser must pay.

nolanfan34

02-09-2005, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
was it underhanded? obviously you idiots! does GoT owe diablo $500? again, obviously you idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone disputes either of these points by now.

The only thing I remain baffled about is why El D really did this in the first place. $500 isn't a small sum, but I don't think it's probably a big deal to El D based on the little I know about him. And he clearly intended to use the webboggle tool to win, so it wasn't going to be a true competition per se. Lastly, as GoT mentioned, I don't think the two have met, or are friends, so bragging rights doesn't seem to hold as much weight either.

This only leaves me to think El D crafted this bet solely because he knew this type of discussion would ensue, and if that's the case, I say well played.

Sarge85

02-09-2005, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://uploadyourimages.com/img/326412boggle.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Sephus

02-09-2005, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this whole thread is stupid. have you guys ever heard of stupid bar bets? like, "oh i can drink 2 beers before you drink 2 shots. but you can't touch my glass and i can't touch yours." etc.

they are all worded in a way such that one guy cannot win. that's the way they go. you are a fool and a mark for accepting such bets.

this was one of those bets, quite obviously.

was it underhanded? obviously you idiots! does GoT owe diablo $500? again, obviously you idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

go [censored] yourself.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:08 PM

1. If I wanted GoT to pay, would I ask him to pay me or would I wait until a day or two later when Schneids randomly posts some mention of this bet in OOT? It should be abundantly clear to anyone who can read, from GoT's messages alone, that I have to this point not asked GoT to pay me.

2. If I wanted to cheat GoT, would I come out of the gate with a score of 240 on a board where no human is likely to break 100?

3. Making prop bets without knowing exactly what you are getting yourself into is dumb.

4. I applaud GoT, who while he knows he got hoodwinked, owns up to owing the money.

5. Read daryn's posts about bar bets and other posts about Amarillo Slim-style prop bets.

6. I can't believe so many people still responded to this after James282's post.

7. Please point out someplace in this entire thread where I said GoT should pay me.

8. I can't believe so many people continued to respond after Marnixvdb explained the outcome of the first game.

9. I can't believe so many people are willing to take strong stands without knowing any other context, history, or background. Perhaps GoT and I make bets like this all the time and twist every rule. Perhaps GoT hoodwinked me for $500 the day before.

10. My analogies in this thread were great.

DangerGoodson

02-09-2005, 06:08 PM

A certain famous prop bettor once bet a guy he could hit a golf ball a mile. The guy took the bettor up on the offer. The bettor placed a golf ball on an end of a frozen lake and teed off. The ball cruised down the ice and the man paid the bettor. How is this any different?

Schneids is a nit.

jesusarenque

02-09-2005, 06:09 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
was it underhanded? obviously you idiots! does GoT owe diablo $500? again, obviously you idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone disputes either of these points by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dispute these points. GOT owes him nothing.

daryn

02-09-2005, 06:10 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
So, daryn, if I challenged you to a game of golf and after you hit your first shot simply walked up to the hole and dropped the ball in and continued to do so on each hole, would you pay me? I didn't follow the rules of golf and Diablo didn't follow the rule of WEBoggle.

So get his cock out of your mouth before you choke to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're clearly a man of sub-average intelligence.

let's use your analogy. we're on the golf course. say we're on a putting green. we're both 20 ft away or something.

you say, "hey daryn, let's make a bet. whoever gets their ball in the hole first, wins $500."

i say, OK. then you reach down, pick up my ball, and throw it as far as you can. you then take your ball and go drop it in the hole.

YOU WIN THE BET.

if this isn't clear to you, well, go back to my 1st statement.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:13 PM

Why did you change the analogy? In yours, of course it is fair. But if I challenge you to a game of golf but don't follow golf's rules, do I still win? No.

jason_t

02-09-2005, 06:15 PM

While were on the subject, does anyone know the etymology of the term "prop bet"?

Just curious.

daryn

02-09-2005, 06:19 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Why did you change the analogy? In yours, of course it is fair. But if I challenge you to a game of golf but don't follow golf's rules, do I still win? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct. in other words, it's all in the wording of the prop bet. were you trying to prove my point? well done.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:24 PM

They challenged each other to a game of WEBoggle. An earlier post in this thread stated that using a script is considered cheating. Hence, Diablo did not follow the rules of the game and did not win.

If WEBoggle rules don't actually ban using scripts, then GoT should pay but Diablo is still a dick.

Edit - The WEBoggle site, under "Cheating" talks about the use of scripts. Hence, since the creator calls it cheating, Diablo did not follow the rules of the game and the bet is void.

pokerjo22

02-09-2005, 06:24 PM

prop is short for proposition

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:25 PM

I am very serious on this point. To those of you who think it is outrageous and despicable to use a boggle solver to win a boggle bet, I really hope that you don't use computer aids like PokerTracker/PokerView/GameTime/etc to help you play poker better than your opponents. Someone said that in the game of Weboggle there is an expectation that the players will come up with the words simply by looking at the board and coming up with words from their own mind.

Well, in the game of poker then, there is an expectation that you will be coming up with the plays based on your own experience. Not that a computer tool is going to assist you in figuring out what type of hand your opponent most likely has and what his most likely action will be. Those of you who find the use of a boggle tool in this game to be so morally repulsive, I hope none of you use any of these tools in online poker. But I suspect many of you do.

daryn

02-09-2005, 06:29 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
They challenged each other to a game of WEBoggle. An earlier post in this thread stated that using a script is considered cheating. Hence, Diablo did not follow the rules of the game and did not win.

If WEBoggle rules don't actually ban using scripts, then GoT should pay but Diablo is still a dick.

Edit - The WEBoggle site, under "Cheating" talks about the use of scripts. Hence, since the creator calls it cheating, Diablo did not follow the rules of the game and the bet is void.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have any idea what the exact terms of the bet were? hint: no you don't.

pshreck

02-09-2005, 06:31 PM

Diablo, This is like comparing watching film to improve your football game with taking illegal drugs to improve your football game.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:34 PM

GoT said they decided to play WEBoggle, then set a price. Hence they had to actually play by WEBoggle rules for the bet to be valid. You are wrong, just stfu and stop digging a deeper hole.

Sponger15SB

02-09-2005, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A certain famous prop bettor once bet a guy he could hit a golf ball a mile. The guy took the bettor up on the offer. The bettor placed a golf ball on an end of a frozen lake and teed off. The ball cruised down the ice and the man paid the bettor. How is this any different?

Schneids is a nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

They knew he was going to try and do something like that....they made all sorts of provisions like he couldn't hit it out of a moving vehicle, off a building, out of a place, etc.

GoT figured that Diablo wouldn't just play him straight up. If he makes GoT pay, Diablo in my opinion is a scum bag with no class, just like Amarillo slim.

jesusarenque

02-09-2005, 06:37 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Diablo, This is like comparing watching film to improve your football game with taking illegal drugs to improve your football game.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is like comparing watching film to improve your football game with bribing the refs to fix the game in your favor.

Clarkmeister

02-09-2005, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Diablo, This is like comparing watching film to improve your football game with taking illegal drugs to improve your football game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

daryn

02-09-2005, 06:39 PM

no man, you are wrong, and sadly all cannot see it.

just like my golf analogy, what if they had said "ok, whoever gets the most points wins $100."

what say you now? try not to contradict yourself.

pshreck

02-09-2005, 06:44 PM

Daryn, doesn't there have to be a minimum standard of assumptions when "play weboggle" is used? The disagreement is that El Diablo and you think he was 'playing', and others don't. I really don't see how he was playing, personally, more like just copying information.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Diablo, This is like comparing watching film to improve your football game with taking illegal drugs to improve your football game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Nowhere did I say that one was as bad as the other. The lack of reading comprehension and logic on this poker forum is stunning.

Here is a more appropriate analogy for you. A football player takes steroids. He is vilified by another player for being a cheat, fraud, etc. This other player, however, takes every possible performance-enhancing supplement available that is not explicitly banned, including new supplements that function and provide benefits substantially similar to steroids. But this substance hasn't been banned yet and is definitely not a steroid.

I think the second player is a hypocrite and a tool.

Jezebel

02-09-2005, 06:45 PM

Here are the rules for Weboggle http://weboggle.shackworks.com/rules.html

No where does it state that using scripts is against the rules. Just because the author mentions that scripts could be written that would give an unfair advantage in this webpage about the history of the game (http://weboggle.shackworks.com/about.html) does not make it against the rules, strictly speaking.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:45 PM

If GoT misrepresented the terms of the bet earlier, it changes things. But since Diablo hasn't corrected him I assume GoT was correct.

Diablo broke the rules of the game they agreed to play and the bet is void.

BottlesOf

02-09-2005, 06:46 PM

You make some good points. However, Amarillo Slim is not someone I want to model my ethical code after.

Voltron87

02-09-2005, 06:47 PM

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:48 PM

"A much easier way to cheat, however, is to write a script to give you all of the words that can be found on the board."

The rules just state scoring; the author specifically says a script is cheating, so it is.

pshreck

02-09-2005, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Nowhere did I say that one was as bad as the other. The lack of reading comprehension and logic on this poker forum is stunning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither did I. Let me explain it more simply for you. Your analogy was incorrect, as using pokertracker than playing poker is still considering playing poker by everyone. Using a cheating device to type in words into webboggle is not considered playing webboggle. In a proposition wager I don't believe you can adjust all definitions of words, especially 'play' in this case, to help you win.

Jezebel

02-09-2005, 06:54 PM

Unless it is specifically mentioned in the offical weboggle rules the authors opinion means jack squat.

In your golf analogy, there are very detailed rules outlining specifically what can and can not be done in the game, hence if someone picked up their ball you could point to a specific rule prohibiting such action.

In weboggle, there are also a listed set of rules. However, there is no mention that using scripts is specifically prohibited. If a rule is not specifically broken, I can't see how someone could be accused of cheating.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If GoT misrepresented the terms of the bet earlier, it changes things. But since Diablo hasn't corrected him I assume GoT was correct.

Diablo broke the rules of the game they agreed to play and the bet is void.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh*

It's sad that you don't see how incredibly wrong you are.

You can come back with any response you like, but it's not going to change my mind or reality.

Daryn, give it up. They don't get it.
I know you can see that.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If I were GOT I would not pay you, this is not the same as a prop bet, and when people bet on a game of boggle cheating is against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I didn't realize you were such an authority on boggle betting.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 06:57 PM

The author made the game and the rules; if he says it is cheating it is cheating.

nolanfan34

02-09-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You make some good points. However, Amarillo Slim is not someone I want to model my ethical code after.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really the bottom line. In the end you still have two guys who agreed to a bet, with one of them clever enough to use computer help to win. El D hasn't given a response to my earlier question, but I still can't figure out why he bothered to do this in the first place. I can't come up with a good reason besides the possibility that he just doesn't like GoT, and thought it would be fun to do this. If it was just to make a quick $500, then so be it.

And I get what El D is saying about Pokertracker and the like, but the comparison between that and the boggle script is slightly flawed. The difference as I see it, is while Pokertracker/gametime, certainly helps make poker decisions easier, you still have to apply some basic poker knowledge. Those programs are totally useless to someone with no knowledge of poker, and they won't help them beat average players.

The script on the other hand, would allow someone with basic reading comprehension to win at boggle, if they merely type in what the script says.

It's a minor difference, but I think it's noteworthy.

FWIW, I'm also in the non-pokertracker/gametime/playerview camp, I don't use those programs. Admittedly to my likely detriment, so questioning my intellegence is perfectly valid.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The author made the game and the rules; if he says it is cheating it is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are attempting to blurr the issue.

If it's not in the official rules, it's not cheating.

The author can make any sort of statement he likes, but if he didn't put it in the rules, it's just talk.

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
was it underhanded? obviously you idiots! does GoT owe diablo $500? again, obviously you idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone disputes either of these points by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't heard the terms of the wager from either party involved. I don't see how anyone can reasonably say the matter is obvious based on hearsay and wild speculation. If I just missed GoT and Diablo stating and agreeing on the terms in this or another thread, then point me to it and I'll have an informed opinion.

apd138

02-09-2005, 07:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am very serious on this point. To those of you who think it is outrageous and despicable to use a boggle solver to win a boggle bet, I really hope that you don't use computer aids like PokerTracker/PokerView/GameTime/etc to help you play poker better than your opponents. Someone said that in the game of Weboggle there is an expectation that the players will come up with the words simply by looking at the board and coming up with words from their own mind.

Well, in the game of poker then, there is an expectation that you will be coming up with the plays based on your own experience. Not that a computer tool is going to assist you in figuring out what type of hand your opponent most likely has and what his most likely action will be. Those of you who find the use of a boggle tool in this game to be so morally repulsive, I hope none of you use any of these tools in online poker. But I suspect many of you do.

[/ QUOTE ] This is flawed what you did is more like using a program that would tell you all the cards the community cards your opponents cards etc. Thats not even really going far enough though maybe if your program could also tell you how your opponents would act depending on what you did then it would be equal to what you did.

Jezebel

02-09-2005, 07:02 PM

So if the author mentions to me at the bar over drinks that he thinks its OK to use scripts then that should be binding?

Rules are written down for a reason. Its so all competitors have a chance to know what is and is not allowed in a game. Random thoughts written by an author that do not get included in the offical rules are not binding.

Voltron87

02-09-2005, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I were GOT I would not pay you, this is not the same as a prop bet, and when people bet on a game of boggle cheating is against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, all stupid phrases I typed and didn't think about aside,

This is not the same as a prop bet, hitting a golf ball a mile, etc. You two agreed to play Boggle. You were not playing Boggle.

Your use of a script is also not the same as someone using Pokertracker, and I don't have to explain why.
Wow. I didn't realize you were such an authority on boggle betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 07:04 PM

"When the timer starts, each player searches the assortment of letters for words of three letters or more (four or more on the 5x5 board). When you find a word, type it into the blank and press the ENTER key."

Diablo did not do that. He cheated.

And again, although the author did not mentioned cheating under "How to Play," he did under "About WEBoggle." I'd consider him the final authority on what is or isn't cheating, and he clearly expressed his opinion about using scripts.

Daliman

02-09-2005, 07:05 PM

This is just dumb. When I play poker at someones house, there is NEVER a stated admonition against cheating. Does that mean I can cheat all I like and expect to get paid afterwards when they find out? It isn't expressly against the contract.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 07:06 PM

Give it up.

I'm not impressed.
The wording of your quote could easily be twisted to shift towards either side of this debate.

Besides, you're still wrong for other reasons.

Fin.

nolanfan34

02-09-2005, 07:07 PM

Someone will probably have linked to it by the time I finish writing this, but I recall GoT essentially saying that the way the bet went down was basically just that one person said "want to bet on boggle", the other said "OK, how about $100 per game, 5 game set", and the first one said "sure."

That's about it. Certainly leaves the door open to interpretation, although GoT has seemed to admit that he lost the bet, and owes the money.

So I agree with Daryn that both of those things are not in dispute. All of the arguing over whether cheating "voids the bet" is pointless.

Ulysses

02-09-2005, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your analogy was incorrect, as using pokertracker than playing poker is still considering playing poker by everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? How do you guys come up with statements like this? Everyone? I know many people who consider using things like poker tracker to be cheating. Whether that is a reasonable sentiment or not is a different question. But to say that everyone playing accepts the use of PokerTracker and similar aids as part of the game is a ridiculous statement.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 07:11 PM

Explaining those other reasons would be nice, since it seems to suggest that bets are still valid even when people break the rules of the game.

BottlesOf

02-09-2005, 07:13 PM

I find this analogy absurd.

That being said, I'm not saying I believe GoT doesn't technically owe you the money, as there are tons of details I'm not privy to. It also seems, you aren't seriously seeking to collect, so no need to reiterate what you've previously said.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Explaining those other reasons would be nice, since it seems to suggest that bets are still valid even when people break the rules of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to flame it out with you and contribute to the noise.

It would be pointless of me to do, anyway.
All the reasons I could give you have already been argued extensively by others in this thread.
It would be silly of me to repeat what they have already said.

MEbenhoe

02-09-2005, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. If I wanted GoT to pay, would I ask him to pay me or would I wait until a day or two later when Schneids randomly posts some mention of this bet in OOT? It should be abundantly clear to anyone who can read, from GoT's messages alone, that I have to this point not asked GoT to pay me.

2. If I wanted to cheat GoT, would I come out of the gate with a score of 240 on a board where no human is likely to break 100?

3. Making prop bets without knowing exactly what you are getting yourself into is dumb.

4. I applaud GoT, who while he knows he got hoodwinked, owns up to owing the money.

5. Read daryn's posts about bar bets and other posts about Amarillo Slim-style prop bets.

6. I can't believe so many people still responded to this after James282's post.

7. Please point out someplace in this entire thread where I said GoT should pay me.

8. I can't believe so many people continued to respond after Marnixvdb explained the outcome of the first game.

9. I can't believe so many people are willing to take strong stands without knowing any other context, history, or background. Perhaps GoT and I make bets like this all the time and twist every rule. Perhaps GoT hoodwinked me for $500 the day before.

10. My analogies in this thread were great.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you guys are all still arguing over this after this post makes you all look really stupid.

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 07:15 PM

AKA you have no other arguments and are just being a jackass as usual.

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am very serious on this point. To those of you who think it is outrageous and despicable to use a boggle solver to win a boggle bet, I really hope that you don't use computer aids like PokerTracker/PokerView/GameTime/etc to help you play poker better than your opponents. Someone said that in the game of Weboggle there is an expectation that the players will come up with the words simply by looking at the board and coming up with words from their own mind.

Well, in the game of poker then, there is an expectation that you will be coming up with the plays based on your own experience. Not that a computer tool is going to assist you in figuring out what type of hand your opponent most likely has and what his most likely action will be. Those of you who find the use of a boggle tool in this game to be so morally repulsive, I hope none of you use any of these tools in online poker. But I suspect many of you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poker argument is a bit of a slippery slope.

My main thought in all of this is that if two people agree to wager on a game, and don't stipulate otherwise, then the commonly accepted rules of the game govern the play. If there are conflicting commonly accepted rules (such as exist in boxing) the situation is rife for controversy. If, however, there are clear uniform rules, and I would say if you are playing on a site that has posted rules those are clear, uniform rules, then violation of those rules constitutes forfeiture.

Having said that, I have no idea how your bet was made, its wording, or any of that stuff, so as stated before I have no oppinion on the subject.

I am surprised no one has made reference to the Chris Brown/Paul Phillips threads yet. Some prime opportunities for humor or just displaying stupidity were missed in that regard.

AngryCola

02-09-2005, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
AKA you have no other arguments and are just being a jackass as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I was just adding my name to the many others who think you are wrong.

That's all.

By the way, it's not like you have an original argument either. I see parts of it have already been used by several others in this thread. So basically all you are doing is contributing to the noise.

Congratulations.

Double Fin.

*NOTE*
Nice attempt at a personal insult.

But I expect more out of you next time.
Try harder.

Jezebel

02-09-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your analogy was incorrect, as using pokertracker than playing poker is still considering playing poker by everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF? How do you guys come up with statements like this? Everyone? I know many people who consider using things like poker tracker to be cheating. Whether that is a reasonable sentiment or not is a different question. But to say that everyone playing accepts the use of PokerTracker and similar aids as part of the game is a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing with my previous line of logic, PokerTracker is not specifically prohibited in the Party Poker Offical rules, thus it is not cheating. There is a clause that prohibits Artificial Intelegence, but Party has interpreted that this clause does not include the use of PT or other database type programs.

fnord_too

02-09-2005, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Unless it is specifically mentioned in the offical weboggle rules the authors opinion means jack squat.

In your golf analogy, there are very detailed rules outlining specifically what can and can not be done in the game, hence if someone picked up their ball you could point to a specific rule prohibiting such action.

In weboggle, there are also a listed set of rules. However, there is no mention that using scripts is specifically prohibited. If a rule is not specifically broken, I can't see how someone could be accused of cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

Wayfare

02-09-2005, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
AKA you have no other arguments and are just being a jackass as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

F--- it, I get too bitter too often /images/graemlins/smile.gif

hoyaboy1

02-09-2005, 07:24 PM

I've been wrong before, so I am open to real arguments here. The only possible debate I see is whether or not the author saying clearly on the site that scripts are cheating is enough for using scripts to be considered breaking the rules. I think it quite clearly is.

I don't see how any other argument is valid or meangingful, but I could be missing something. And the college insults are pretty tired (although I've dealt my fair share of cheapshots in this thread so I'll give you a pass).

Edit - again, this is assuming GoT properly represented how the bet came about earlier in the thread.

Lawrence Ng

02-09-2005, 07:26 PM

Zigzactly!!!!

Lawrence

Macdaddy Warsaw

02-09-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am very serious on this point. To those of you who think it is outrageous and despicable to use a boggle solver to win a boggle bet, I really hope that you don't use computer aids like PokerTracker/PokerView/GameTime/etc to help you play poker better than your opponents. Someone said that in the game of Weboggle there is an expectation that the players will come up with the words simply by looking at the board and coming up with words from their own mind.

Well, in the game of poker then, there is an expectation that you will be coming up with the plays based on your own experience. Not that a computer tool is going to assist you in figuring out what type of hand your opponent most likely has and what his most likely action will be. Those of you who find the use of a boggle tool in this game to be so morally repulsive, I hope none of you use any of these tools in online poker. But I suspect many of you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to say that this a terrible analogy. A program that provides analysis of your own game and your opponent's game does not, in any way, shape, or form, equal using a program to take in the current situation and tell you what to do.

I think you know this is wrong and that's why you went back and made the football analogy of steroids for non-illegal supplements.

Whatever, this thread IS stupid, but El Diablo, you seem pretty pompous and uncool. Also, the get the cock out of your mouth before you choke line to Daryn made me laugh.

Homer

02-09-2005, 07:26 PM

bump

Lawrence Ng

02-09-2005, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
- if a situation is unresolved, you don't call people out on it. making this post was a kneejerk response to "what happened," but it is clear that there is disagreement and a lack of communication on both parties. the bet was between GoT and diablo. any disputes should have been resolved between them, just as the bet was made between them with no 3rd-party interference. if GoT felt he was wronged, wanted to be vindictive, or whatever it was his and only his place to "tell on him." regardless of the outcome, you are lame and out of your jurisdiction schneids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree with you here Astro, but dang this is good read and I'm loving it. Best OOT thread in months.

Lawrence