Jump to content

After Careful Thought and Consideration...


Jimmy Hoffa
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, RaiseThese said:

Who give a fuck what they think and besides I have not been too popular lately so Im sure the usual crew will come in an put their own spin on things later today.

Par for the course.

Look pedo lover, you wanted me to know what happened so I responded,

I really dont care about the money or the loss, nerve did, I counted this a loss after the Conference Playoff games .

I already said Im glad for the lesson and it was a cheap one,

I  just keep responding becuase im amazed at how much a deal YOU and MIke are making out of it.

You still owe me money on that trump bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RaiseThese said:

Who give a fuck what they think and besides I have not been too popular lately so Im sure the usual crew will come in an put their own spin on things later today.

Par for the course.

Look pedo lover, you wanted me to know what happened so I responded,

I really dont care about the money or the loss, nerve did, I counted this a loss after the Conference Playoff games .

I already said Im glad for the lesson and it was a cheap one,

I  just keep responding becuase im amazed at how much a deal YOU and MIke are making out of it.

If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t have asked us to “level the playing field” to “give you a chance.” 

Oh, don’t give up now commie.  #STOPTHECONTESTSTEAL!

 

But I have an appt so I’m out.  I think you have sufficiently buried yourself here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IAG said:

If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t have asked us to “level the playing field” to “give you a chance.” 

Oh, don’t give in now commie.  #STOPTHECONTESTSTEAL!

Nah, just having fun.

When I say I dont care Im saying I dont care about the loss spinster.

OF course I would have preferred to win but had almost no shot after the conference championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikeman said:

No, but if your memory is going to be conveniently bad, so can mine, I "think" we bet $500 or so. :deemer

Mike stop the bullshit, we didnt have a bet, you declined remember.

Perhaps go through your pms and the thread and then you will be reminded of that fact.

You taught me a good lesson though, even if it cost you a potential win. Nice job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RaiseThese said:

Mike stop the bullshit, we didnt have a bet, you declined remember.

Perhaps go through your pms and the thread and then you will be reminded of that fact.

You taught me a good lesson though, even if it cost you a potential win. Nice job.

I'm joking, you sure are uptight sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I guess I will explain it so my comments make sense and maybe some will learn a little game theory at the same time. Raise fixing to school some folks and like Hines I can claim a gambling professor credit at TGF U

Mike claimed that he wanted to make the best decision to win yet he played the game in a manner that didnt give him the best chance to win.

How is that?

Mike  was in first place and picked first and made his pick public instead of private. By picking first he had a 50/50 shot of winning. HE picks right he wins. BUT if he makes his pick private then he increases his odds to maybe 60/40 or better because now there is a chance that IAG or me MIRROR his pick in which case he wins no matter how the game turns out or maybe one mirrors KC and one picks a total that loses, so he has more chances to win this way.

But he decided to pick first and takes KC, now IAG in second place has no choice but to pick the opposite because if KC doesnt cover then that means TB does and she wins. It would be stupid to pick anything but Tampa, no use picking a total because that can only cost her, not help her.

So the collusion was implicit, Im not suggesting that they got together. It is no different in poker when 2 parties as a matter of proper strategy check down a hand in a tournament in hopes of knocking 3rd player out, it is legal and considered implicit collusion ....whereas if they verbally announced or suggested to each they were going to do it then it is explicit colusion and not allowed.

So I make no claim that anyone did anything wrong or illegal.

My claim that Mike was teaching me a lesson is that he KNEW by making his pick early and public that IAG had no logical choice but to take the opposite and since I was in third place it would shut me out as no matter who I took one of them would win and have more points than me.

Im not mad or upset in the least. So claims to the contrary are completely false.

I was simply stating the obvious, Mike made a lower percentage play in order to shut me out rather than making the higher percentage play and make his pick private..

There was nothing that I could do to win so whether I picked first ,last or not at all   nothing would have changed.

 

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RaiseThese said:

Okay I guess I will explain it so my comments make sense and maybe some will learn a little game theory at the same time. Raise fixing to school some folks and like Hines I can claim a gambling professor credit at TGF U

Mike claimed that he wanted to make the best decision to win yet he played the game in a manner that didnt give him the best chance to win.

How is that?

Mike  was in first place and picked first and made his pick public instead of private. By picking first he had a 50/50 shot of winning. HE picks right he wins. BUT if he makes his pick private then he increases his odds to maybe 60/40 or so because now there is a chance that IAG or me MIRROR his pick in which case he wins no matter how the game turns out or maybe one mirrors KC and one picks a total that loses, so he has more chances to win this way.

But he decided to pick first and takes KC, now IAG in second place has no choice but to pick the opposite because if KC doesnt cover then that means TB does and she wins. It would be stupid to pick anything but Tampa, no use picking a total because that can only cost her, not help her.

So the collusion was implicit, Im not suggesting that they got together. It is no different in poker when 2 parties as a matter of proper strategy check down a hand in a tournament in hopes of knocking 3rd player out, it is legal and considered implicit collusion ....whereas if they verbally announced or suggested to each they were going to do it then it is explicit colusion and not allowed.

So I make no claim that anyone did anything wrong or illegal.

My claim that Mike was teaching me a lesson is that he KNEW by making his pick early and public that IAG had no logical choice but to take the opposite and since I was in third place it would shut me out as no matter who I took one of them would win and have more points than me.

Im not mad or upset in the least. So claims to the contrary are completely false.

I was simply stating the obvious, Mike made a lower percentage play in order to shut me out rather than making the higher percentage play and make his pick private..

There was nothing that I could do to win so whether I picked first ,last or not at all   nothing would have changed.

 

That is all.

The problem is if I pick privately, that is only private for IAG, not you, since I would have PM'd you to make my pick, so you are saying I should have given you an advantage and not her.

The fact is I was not concerned with you in any way, she was the competition, not you, I made my pick and I was wrong, I'm fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mikeman said:

The problem is if I pick privately, that is only private for IAG, not you, since I would have PM'd you to make my pick, so you are saying I should have given you an advantage and not her.

The fact is I was not concerned with you in any way, she was the competition, not you, I made my pick and I was wrong, I'm fine with that.

Huh, you would not pm me , you would have sent it to a third party like Jimmy who would release before the game

You would have increased your odds of winning, the fact that you claim you dont care doesnt change the fact that you chose lesser odds just like the fact that I said I didnt care about losing change the fact that I could have got home earlier to make a pick.

You are really lost today on the logic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RaiseThese said:

Huh, you would not pm me , you would have sent it to a third party like Jimmy who would release before the game

You would have increased your odds of winning, the fact that you claim you dont care doesnt change the fact that you chose lesser odds just like the fact that I said I didnt care about losing change the fact that I could have got home earlier to make a pick.

You are really lost today on the logic.

 

Cmon, it was your contest, you ran it, you made the rules, I would never have Pm'd anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikeman said:

Cmon, it was your contest, you ran it, you made the rules, I would never have Pm'd anyone else.

That is on you. That was an option under the rules and you didnt use it.

Bottom line is YOU chose a lower percentage play.

The reality is that IAG would have taken KC and mirrored you , she would not have won

I dont know who I would have taken but I was leaning KC or Over, who knows as I didnt really study since I knew I could not  win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...