OT: The Throwing vs Hitting Tennis Bet

[etizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is an ABSOLUTE LOCK. He admitted to it over AIM to Ken.

Also does anyone else not find it immoral that several times in this thread Nick made it seem that Ken was a favorite (in fact a large favorite) but when talking to Ken straight up admitted to Ken having 0% chance (actually -50% chance)?

[/ QUOTE ]
baron, please address my analogy. in a nl game at the river you have the nuts, an ABSOLUTE LOCK. you shove, your opponent is considering whether or not to call. you would be acting immorally if you gave any false indication that you might be weak or bluffing, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


Mikech, I addressed this above. I think what I said was that you have to think of the hand as a scenario.

There are going to be lots of scenarios where you push all in on the river and act a certain way. Sometimes you will have the nuts and your poor opponent has no chance. Other times you don't and you don't want a call.

Regardless of what you do, your opponent will decide whether or not to call based on what % he thinks you are bluffing. The call can either be profitable ("Correct") for him if he chooses the correct %, or otherwise unprofitable.

That said, your isolated situation is an unfair comparison, because you aren't ALWAYS holding the nuts when you push on the river, otherwise he could just fold immediately, right?

Nick is ALWAYS holding the nuts. The deck is rigged in his favor and the opponent doesn't know it.

THAT is the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]


BARON.... you are coming off like such a moron in this argument against El D it makes me want to puke. KEN KNEW THE EXACT TERMS OF THE BET, IT IS ONLY A HUSTLE BECAUSE HE OVERESTIMATED HIS ABILITY. A BETTER PLAYER WOULD BEAT NICK, AS HE HAS SAID.

wtf is wrong with you man? Nick was not trying to trick him or anything of the sort. There is nothing immoral about it.

IN FACT, I don't even believe that you think its immoral. I think you are just saying this because of how much of a douchebag you were towards nick, and trying to justify it.

Thats the only explaination I have, because there's no way you can be this dumb.

[El Diablo]

baron,

I think you've made it sufficiently clear to everyone what you are all about.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
Nick was not trying to trick him or anything of the sort. There is nothing immoral about it.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is where our opinions differ. Nick did try to trick him, and it was immoral.

[CamelZoo]

bz: nothing wrong with allowing $ to blur your morals as long as you're able to take a step back and see it for what it is, especially without juding others - but it seems like you're doing some weird rationalizing as to what hustling/gambling/poker really is... you come out miraculously clean morally in the whole ordeal

nr: the best part of this thread is that you're still offering up bets lol :-)

eld: impressive ownership of this thread

kk: you can redeem yourself with racquet v racquet against etizzle eastside v west

[Nick Rainey]

If everyone can not tell everyone and his grandmother, i will let you know when i play my first big match against a non 2+2'r. It will be in Vegas and should be entertaining. and you can bet your bottom dollar i will give you a cut if you can find me a freaking fish to play against.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone can not tell everyone and his grandmother, i will let you know when i play my first big match against a non 2+2'r. It will be in Vegas and should be entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

a video of the match would be great, but I wouldn't post about who you are playing

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottomset,

Looking back over the thread I see that Ken did in fact run his mouth a bit. I don't know if I realized that at first but I apologize on his behalf.

But like I said before, those poker players have a CHANCE on every given day to win. That is the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not where the difference is. In a poker game, everyone knows the rules, everyone plays by them, and the money ends up where it will end up. Just like it does in a prop bet. It's obvious that Nick has a >0% chance of losing this bet (even if it's <<1%). But even if it were literally 0%, it wouldn't matter. When I lose money to better poker players, I don't feel okay about it because I had a chance to get lucky and win; I feel okay about it because I played a game, played by the rules, and lost my money.

Stop hiding behind this irrelevant distinction, man up, and get behind your word. It will be long-term profitable in your poker career and, more importantly, long-term beneficial in your life.

[blah99]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone ranked top 400 in the world would beat me everytime. that is a fact. today i played a few games with some guys ranked around 200. i won the first few games, but once you figure out the strategy, a skilled tennis player will win. that is why i will take the racket side of the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was this with a glove (baseball glove?) or without?

[rwesty]

[ QUOTE ]
baron,

I think you've made it sufficiently clear to everyone what you are all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nick Rainey]

with the glove, so without a glove a good solid college player would beat me, if i have no glove.