OT: The Throwing vs Hitting Tennis Bet

[kidcolin]

bz,

el d's point still stands. How is it immoral for him to do it, but not for you and ken to do it when you think you're essentially taking some sucker's money? Again, my retarded aunt would see the holes in this logic.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
aim conversations are private and not for public viewing IMO. I did say that I was a huge favorite, but part of the hustle is looking for easy marks.

Call me a hustler and I will take it as the greatest compliment.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with you, and that is why I haven't posted it yet. If you had tried to deny making such statements (ie admitting it is a hustle/scam) I wouldn't feel it wrong to post the AIM convo.

[El Diablo]

bz,

Have you ever played a guy at poker who you thought was likely drunk and tilting? If so, that's a helluva lot more immoral than anything Nick has done.

[Nick Rainey]

everyone knew it was a hustle. now, i am a gambler, and i would have probably lost all my money on this bet.

[El Diablo]

kc,

"How is it immoral for him to do it, but not for you and ken to do it when you think you're essentially taking some sucker's money?"

I already explained that. It is ok for bz to take money from idiots or people not in full control of themselves, but when bz is the idiot, it is immoral.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
almostbusto,

I largely disagree, but I won't get into it. And it should be mentioned that 1C5 quickly agreed to the bet, and soon thereafter realized it was a hustle. Yet throughout, kept asserting that he WOULD still make the bet because he had agreed to do it. Even AFTER he schooled someone taking the catch side.

[/ QUOTE ]

well consider this scenario:

2 players(A and B) agree to a heads up tournament and they let person C deal. C is also deemed to act as the floor and as such all decisions are final.

so lets say player A gets AA or something on the first hand and declares he is all in preflop. the Dealer promptly mucks his cards and declares his hand dead and pushes the pot to player B. because C's decisions are final the tournament is over and B wins.

now obviously B and C were in on it together. but its not cheating since it was all clearly stated in the rules.


of course this is total [censored]. player A should do everything in his power not to pay.

I know many will think this example totally stupid, and it is, but i think it parallels baronzeus's position in some respect. what they thought they were getting into and what they were actually getting into were very very different things. its not like they thought they were an 80% favorite and it turns out they were a 20% dog, they were absolutely dead in the water from the start much like the tournament

[El Diablo]

Nick,

"now, i am a gambler, and i would have probably lost all my money on this bet."

Yeah, nobody here is mistaking you for a rocket scientist. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is I think what Nick is doing is immoral. If you don't think so, that's your prerogative.

[/ QUOTE ]
you say nick can never lose this prop bet. so, to use my poker analogy again (which you seem to have misunderstood), nick has the nut hand, and ken was considering calling. you wanted nick to say flat-out, "you will lose, you have no chance." basically, you are saying nick was immoral for not turning his cards face-up.

[Nick Rainey]

lol i love it. but who wants to play now as the thrower and me the hitter?

[El Diablo]

ab,

That's ridiculous and anyone who has any experience in prop bets (or anyone with any common sense) would agree.

That's like saying, you and my 95-year-old grandmother armwrestle for $xxxx and then taking a machete and chopping off the guys arms and claiming he lost.

Nothing anywhere remotely like your cheating scenario occurred here.