DeathMatch for 10K: paisiello v. anonimuss (split from Betting When Small Blind)
Quote: paisielloNo, I think you're wrong, it is important otherwise you would end up losing even more money in a -ve EV game. That is just the mathematical definition of maximize. It doesn't mean the number has to be +ve.
Do you agree with Mission that folding the SB is a specifically -ve EV play?
This is stupid, it's just a difference in terminology. He is talking about the total EV of the hand, and you are talking about the delta in EV between folding and doing something else, considering all money in the pot as dead.
Regardless of which method you use, you will get the same play when you maximize so it doesn't matter.
I will say that in poker literature, the standard is to use the terminology that you are using, whereas in literature for most other games, the standard is to use the one that Mission is using, but it is all irrelevant because it is trivial to convert from one to the other.
It's just like asking whether winning an even money bet should be referred to as "1 to 1" or "2 for 1". The first is standard for table games (except for a few sucker bets where they try to trick the player) and the second is standard for machines, but in the end it does not matter because it's just a difference in terminology.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is stupid, it's just a difference in terminology. He is talking about the total EV of the hand, and you are talking about the delta in EV between folding and doing something else, considering all money in the pot as dead.
It's not just a difference in terminology. Here is what he posted previously on February 28th, 2014 at 7:52:50 PM:
Quote: Mission1461.) If you fold, do you or do you not definitely lose the hand?
2.) Would you classify losing the hand as a financially positive or financially (or tournament chips) negative event, assuming you had money in the pot at the time you folded?
3.) If you would classify folding as a financially (or tournament chips) negative event, then folding had negative expected value. You may only be presented with two choices, one of them folding, and both choices have a negative expected value, that doesn't change the fact that folding has a fixed negative expected value of (-1) * (whatever you have in the pot)
I think he is talking about a specific play within the hand and not of the hand overall. Maybe you can re-interpret what he should have said instead?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI will say that in poker literature, the standard is to use the terminology that you are using, whereas in literature for most other games, the standard is to use the one that Mission is using, but it is all irrelevant because it is trivial to convert from one to the other.
I don't see the terminology in the above statement by Mission. Maybe you can respond to his questions using what you think his terminology is.
Quote: paisielloI think he is talking about a specific play within the hand and not of the hand overall. Maybe you can re-interpret what he should have said instead?
He is very clearly talking about the hand overall. Obviously he does not think that you have to throw extra chips in when you fold.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe is very clearly talking about the hand overall. Obviously he does not think that you have to throw extra chips in when you fold.
It's not clear to me otherwise why would he or anyone talk about the act of folding being -ve EV?
I think what you and he probably actually meant to say is that folding does not maximize the EV of the hand overall. This is not the same thing as assigning a -ve or +ve EV to a specific play within the hand. So when you confuse the terminologies, which is what I think you both have done here, then you can make faulty statements like folding has a -ve EV and reach erroneous conclusions like folding will not maximize the EV of the hand.
In the specific case we are considering, of course, I feel strongly that folding is a EV=0 specific play that actually does maximize the EV of the hand.
Quote: paisielloIt's not clear to me
Well then perhaps you need to work on your comprehension skills, because it's really, really obvious.
Quote: paisielloWould you be willing to make it a $10,000 bet? Might be worth my time for that amount.
LOL
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell then perhaps you need to work on your comprehension skills, because it's really, really obvious.
Maybe for a superior genius like you it might be but for a legit moron like me when someone says folding is -ve EV then they are just plain wrong regardless of how really, really obvious it is to you.
Quote: paisiello-ve EV
Can someone explain what this abbreviation means? I understand "-EV", but not "-ve EV."
Quote: paisielloMaybe for a superior genius like you it might be but for a legit moron like me when someone says folding is -ve EV then they are just plain wrong regardless of how really, really obvious it is to you.
Which is why I suggested that you work on your comprehension skills.
Quote: michael99000
Quote: paisiello
Would you be willing to make it a $10,000 bet? Might be worth my time for that amount.
LOL
That was in response to anonimuss who challenged me to a bet. Like you and the other posters in this thread, he couldn't put a coherent argument together to support his position, so the only thing he could think of was to challenge me to a bet. Only once he realized how bad a bet he made he abruptly disappeared never to be heard from again. Then it seemed everyone jumped in and tried and get me to change the terms of the bet. When I refused they started to goad me like you are doing now.
I'll give anonimuss credit, though. He at least knows when to give up. The rest of you just don't stop. I really wish you would stop and move on to another thread.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhich is why I suggested that you work on your comprehension skills.
Sorry, I do not have your great intelligence so when someone says folding is -ve EV then they are just plain wrong regardless of what you think.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe gave up when he realized that you were all talk and were not going to bet him.
He gave up after he realized he made a bad bet. Unlike you, who never gives up trying to goad me. I wish you would give up on that already.
Quote: paisielloSorry, I do not have your great intelligence so when someone says folding is -ve EV then they are just plain wrong regardless of what you think.
You seem to have a logical error here. Your level of intelligence has no bearing on whether Mission's statement was correct or not.
Quote: paisielloHe gave up after he realized he made a bad bet. Unlike you, who never gives up trying to goad me. I wish you would give up on that already.
No, he gave up after repeatedly offering to post money for the bet and you repeatedly refused to.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, he gave up after repeatedly offering to post money for the bet and you repeatedly refused to.
Nope, you're still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.
You are confusing Anonimuss with Axlewolf aong with all the other things you are confused about. The former was the one who proposed the bet and disappeared as soon as the this thread was created. The latter tried to change the terms of the bet which I refused to do. The latter also tells me I keep bringing up the bet when n fact it is posters like you who keep bringng it up, not me.
Quote: paisielloYou are confusing Anonimuss with Axlewolf
No, I'm not. Anon kept asking you for the names of 10 pros, and you kept stalling. He offered to bet $1k, then you tried to scare him off by saying that you wouldn't bet for less than $10k, which he quickly agreed to, and offered to post his money first. Then you realize that your bluff got called, so you kept making excuses, asking him to repeat the terms that he had already given you. Eventually he saw that you would never bet and he gave up (and probably blocked the thread).
Axel joined the thread much later and tried to pick up where Anon gave up. I think Axel is coming to the same conclusion as Anon did -- you will never bet. Can't blame a guy for trying though.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAxel joined the thread much later and tried to pick up where Anon gave up. I think Axel is coming to the same conclusion as Anon did -- you will never bet. Can't blame a guy for trying though.
Coming to it? Seriously, he's repeatedly said he's not going to take any bet unless it's with the original terms. It's crystal clear to me! I'd give up trying to get any action here, just not gonna happen.
First thing I said is, I would like to take over the bet. You were the first to change the bet. The bet was 1k YOU then changed the amount once you change the amount it would leave the bet open to negotiation. Also the terms were never set so I can't change something that's not even agreed on. You also wanted to edit / change/ the OPs after the fact when it was clear as to the question he was asking.Quote: paisielloHere is a quote from your very first post in this thread:
Sounds like to me you were trying to change the terms that Anon offered me.
And you keep trying to challenge me with different bets despite me saying over and over that I am not interested.
I am not the one bringing it up, you and the other posters in this thread are.
Again, I'm not the one bringing it up. You and the other posters are bringing it up non-stop. Here is your post from earlier this morning:
Sounds like you and the other poster are the ones goading and bringing the bet up again, not me.
I gave some references in a previous post. And I don't care what you can or cannot imagine. I know professionals who are much stronger poker players than you so your view point is not credible to me.
Here are just some of them:
March 1st, 2014 at 2:22:59 AM
I never called you a con. I said I thought you were trying to con me when you kept repeatedly trying to change the terms of the bet. If that fits your definition of a con then you have effectively defined yourself one.
And I asked who wanted to know and you gave me a glib answer.
I only made suggestions and that's obvious, considering I made many suggestions and I asked you to come up with something. I was very flexible and willing to give you much leeway and I said that many times. You were dragging your feet. Something had to get the ball rolling.
Coming up with suggestions or making an offer is not trying to con someone I was trying to make FAIR bet, you were trying to make a weasel bet. Not only that, you said you were thinking of cheating and paying your 10 picks off.
If any moderator thinks I was trying to CON you after reading this thread, they can immediately suspend me for a week. However, if they find I was not trying to con you, you should be suspended for saying I was trying to con you. Normally I don't care if people insult me, you can call me just about anything derogatory name you want and I wouldn't want you to be suspended, but suggesting im a con or that I'm trying to cheat you crosses the line.
The people you referenced i believe were Skalansky correct? You know him personally?
I would like you to name ONE just one Professional poker player you know personally. It would be nice if they were among the top 500 players.
you said, "And I asked who wanted to know and you gave me a glib answer." I don't get it, I clearly said I wanted to know. how is that a glib answer?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, I'm not. Anon kept asking you for the names of 10 pros, and you kept stalling. He offered to bet $1k, then you tried to scare him off by saying that you wouldn't bet for less than $10k, which he quickly agreed to, and offered to post his money first. Then you realize that your bluff got called, so you kept making excuses, asking him to repeat the terms that he had already given you. Eventually he saw that you would never bet and he gave up (and probably blocked the thread).
Axel joined the thread much later and tried to pick up where Anon gave up. I think Axel is coming to the same conclusion as Anon did -- you will never bet. Can't blame a guy for trying though.
Nope, you're still confused. Anon and I agreed to the terms and when I asked him a number of questions about how we could verify who the pros were, he stopped responding. I doubt very much he was interested in continuing with the bet but if you can convince him to I'll still take his action. Oh, BTW, if he tries to change the terms then I am not interested. I think I said that before but just thought I would clarify it for you.
Axel did takeover and tried to change the terms of the bet despite my repeated statements telling him that I wasn't interested. Oh, maybe I forgot to mention, if you change the terms of the bet then I am not interested no matter how much you goad me.
And maybe you can block this thread as well. I'd rather not have to keep responding to your repetitive and empty statements.
He let you raise the stakes to $10k
He offered to let you name the pros
He offered to post his $10k first
And yet, you kept making excuses about why you wouldn't bet. First the terms weren't clear. Then you were afraid that he might sue you. Then you thought that someone was trying to con you. The excuses keep getting more and more far-fetched.
Sometimes I hate you. You found the real simple truth.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe offered you clear terms on a bet.
He let you raise the stakes to $10k
He offered to let you name the pros
He offered to post his $10k first
And yet, you kept making excuses about why you wouldn't bet. First the terms weren't clear. Then you were afraid that he might sue you. Then you thought that someone was trying to con you. The excuses keep getting more and more far-fetched.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe offered you clear terms on a bet.
He let you raise the stakes to $10k
He offered to let you name the pros
He offered to post his $10k first
And yet, you kept making excuses about why you wouldn't bet. First the terms weren't clear. Then you were afraid that he might sue you. Then you thought that someone was trying to con you. The excuses keep getting more and more far-fetched.
Exactly. He doesn't realize how obvious it is that he was never gonna bet. And in the process of weaseling out of the bet he's made himself look even worse.
It's right there in plain English, every time anon made the bet terms clearer and clearer, paisello found a new reason to not confirm the bet, it's actually funny reading it over again
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe offered you clear terms on a bet.
He let you raise the stakes to $10k
He offered to let you name the pros
He offered to post his $10k first
And yet, you kept making excuses about why you wouldn't bet. First the terms weren't clear. Then you were afraid that he might sue you. Then you thought that someone was trying to con you. The excuses keep getting more and more far-fetched.
No, you still haven't got it. Try harder. It shouldn't be too difficult for a great intellect like yourself. Maybe go back and re-read the posts again.
I did not make excuses, I had some legitimate questions including the enforceability of the contract. I know a superior brain like yourself would not worry about these kinds of details and send his money off to Nigeria but I am a little more cautious than that. And when someone keeps trying to change the terms of the bet despite me telling them I wasn't interested, it seemed like a scam to me.
Have you figured out how to block this thread yet? Maybe someone can help you figure it out. The sooner the better.
Quote: AxelWolfSometimes I hate you. You found the real simple truth.
He didn't find anything. He was confused so I tried to explain it to him. No luck in that.
Quote: paisielloIf you were to qualify it and only confirm professional poker players who have been playing cash games successfully for a minimum 10 years, then I might consider taking you up on it.
.
Quote: anonimussPick 10 professional players. We'll contact them if you want. Just do something other than make excuses.
Quote: anonimussYou just got the terms. Work on comprehension. I told you I'll post the money first. You keep dodging not me. I'm not interested in going back and forth with you. I'm interested in posting the money.
BOOM
Quote: michael99000Exactly. He doesn't realize how obvious it is that he was never gonna bet. And in the process of weaseling out of the bet he's made himself look even worse.
It's right there in plain English, every time anon made the bet terms clearer and clearer, paisello found a new reason to not confirm the bet, it's actually funny reading it over again
No, that's not true. I asked some questions about how the to verify the terms and he never responded. He only kept goading me like you are still doing now.
Quote: michael99000BOOM
BOOM yourself. Where are the answers to my questions?
Quote: paisiello...what is the actual legality of this kind of bet? That is after I win the bet can I legally enforce the terms to make sure I collect?
Quote: paisielloI think we would have to modify the OP since as worded I don't think it was specific enough. Maybe you could do that for me also?
Quote: paisielloAnother thing we will need to do (to make it fair to both parties including the proposer) is to clarify everything for the purposes of this bet:
1) what is the accepted definition of a professional poker player (PPP)?
2) how is the information provided by the PPP confirmed as authentic?
3) is the wizard also the mediator to determine who wins the bet? or this another party?
Never got one response from him on this. I know you wouldn't worry about these details but I am more cautious with money than you.
paisiello I had a few questions here, you seemed to be avoiding a few questions.Quote: AxelWolfFirst thing I said is, I would like to take over the bet. You were the first to change the bet. The bet was 1k YOU then changed the amount once you change the amount it would leave the bet open to negotiation. Also the terms were never set so I can't change something that's not even agreed on. You also wanted to edit / change/ the OPs after the fact when it was clear as to the question he was asking.
I only made suggestions and that's obvious, considering I made many suggestions and I asked you to come up with something. I was very flexible and willing to give you much leeway and I said that many times. You were dragging your feet. Something had to get the ball rolling.
Coming up with suggestions or making an offer is not trying to con someone I was trying to make FAIR bet, you were trying to make a weasel bet. Not only that, you said you were thinking of cheating and paying your 10 picks off.
If any moderator thinks I was trying to CON you after reading this thread, they can immediately suspend me for a week. However, if they find I was not trying to con you, you should be suspended for saying I was trying to con you. Normally I don't care if people insult me, you can call me just about anything derogatory name you want and I wouldn't want you to be suspended, but suggesting im a con or that I'm trying to cheat you crosses the line.
The people you referenced i believe were Skalansky correct? You know him personally?
I would like you to name ONE just one Professional poker player you know personally. It would be nice if they were among the top 500 players.
you said, "And I asked who wanted to know and you gave me a glib answer." I don't get it, I clearly said I wanted to know. how is that a glib answer?
Quote: AxelWolfpaisiello I had a few questions here, you seemed to be avoiding a few questions.
One thing for sure, He will avoid anything that involves a bet.
He raised to 10k like a hotshot, then got called on his bluff by you (the bluff being that he'd ever bet a dime let alone 10k), then spent the rest of the thread doing whatever he could to end the bet talk. It was funny watching him squirm when you challenged him to put his money behind his completely incorrect argument. The same way he hemmed and hawed and squirmed when anon offered to bet.
We will never hear any bet talk from paisello again. He learned his lesson the hard way.
To be clear I'M NO LONGER ASKING ABOUT THE BET. I just want to know out of curiosity. What Pros he knows. What limits and games he plays. I would love to see his list of 10 professionals he thinks would agree with him once reading the OP. I asked him if he knew Skalansky since he referenced him, and then pointed that out to me he referenced players. That was the only name I seen him refer to.Quote: michael99000One thing for sure, He will avoid anything that involves a bet.
He raised to 10k like a hotshot, then got called on his bluff by you (the bluff being that he'd ever bet a dime let alone 10k), then spent the rest of the thread doing whatever he could to end the bet talk. It was funny watching him squirm when you called him.
We will never hear any bet talk from paisello again. He learned his lesson the hard way. Comes away from this thread looking like a hotshot fraud
Quote: AxelWolfpaisiello I had a few questions here, you seemed to be avoiding a few questions.
Haven't you blocked this thread yet?
I have no compulsion to answer anyone who is rude to me and personally insulted me.
Quote: michael99000One thing for sure, He will avoid anything that involves a bet.
He raised to 10k like a hotshot, then got called on his bluff by you (the bluff being that he'd ever bet a dime let alone 10k), then spent the rest of the thread doing whatever he could to end the bet talk. It was funny watching him squirm when you challenged him to put his money behind his completely incorrect argument. The same way he hemmed and hawed and squirmed when anon offered to bet.
We will never hear any bet talk from paisello again. He learned his lesson the hard way.
Absolutely false. Axel tried to change the terms of the bet on me which I was not interested in. I wish I didn't have to keep repeating this to you.
Anon is the one who dropped out of the thread, not me. Please stop goading me.
Quote: AxelWolfTo be clear I'M NO LONGER ASKING ABOUT THE BET.
Yeah, but the other posters keep bringing it up. They are trying to goad me to no avail.
Your position cannot be very tenable if instead of putting together a coherent argument all you can say is, "Wanna bet?" And then when I raise the stakes you suddenly disappear after realizing it is a bad bet or you try and change the terms of the bet back on me.
But I am a legit moron and you are all so great. So what do I know?
Quote: paisielloHaven't you blocked this thread yet?
I have no compulsion to answer anyone who is rude to me and personally insulted me.
Lame excuse in a long list of others, I guess you finally ran out of excuses you are AFRAID to answer because we would get the real picture(online penny stakes player giving poker advice, then trying to make bets you can't afford). You have been answering questions long after you think I insulted you and you have answered other people who have said worst. You seem to forget you called me a con yet you said you were thinking of cheating. and you only make weasel bets
The only bad part of the bet was you were thinking of cheating in order to win. By paying off 10 people who you hand picked. People who only YOU would consider Pro's. We offered to let a level headed person to define the terms. I think you even suggested that you trusted the wizard. Once you realized if you couldn't cheat to win you had no chance.Quote: paisielloYeah, but the other posters keep bringing it up. They are trying to goad me to no avail.
Your position cannot be very tenable if instead of putting together a coherent argument all you can say is, "Wanna bet?" And then when I raise the stakes you suddenly disappear after realizing it is a bad bet or you try and change the terms of the bet back on me.
But I am a legit moron and you are all so great. So what do I know?
I did bring up a coherent argument and was willing to back it up and offer proof. You are the only person here with a incoherent argument.
Quote: AxelWolfLame excuse in a long list of others, I guess you finally ran out of excuses you are AFRAID to answer because we would get the real picture(online penny stakes player giving poker advice, then trying to make bets you can't afford). You have been answering questions long after you think I insulted you and you have answered other people who have said worst. You seem to forget you called me a con yet you said you were thinking of cheating. and you only make weasel bets
No excuses and not afraid in responding to the same old repetitive things that you keep bringing up (but long tired in responding). Since this is a free forum which I am a member of I can respond to anyone in any manner I want provided I stay within the rules. I am under no compulsion to have say anything or respond to anything you say. After all, you haven't answered my questions either so why should I answer yours?
And I didn't call you a con. You are calling yourself one.
Quote: AxelWolfThe only bad part of the bet was you were thinking of cheating in order to win. By paying off 10 people who you hand picked. People who only YOU would consider Pro's. We offered to let a level headed person to define the terms. I think you even suggested that you trusted the wizard. Once you realized if you couldn't cheat to win you had no chance.
I did bring up a coherent argument and was willing to back it up and offer proof. You are the only person here with a incoherent argument.
Nope, you're wrong as usual. Anon made the terms of the bet, not me. In order to collect the money I realized I was probably going to have to pay a consulting fee to legitimate professionals for their time. Just like you have to pay expert witnesses for their time in court. If I was cheating I would not have disclosed the fact from the beginning.
I wasn't interested in changing the terms of the bet despite your continued efforts to keep changing them.
You have never brought up any coherent argument. You only keep challenging me to a bet with the terms changed or keep trying to point out that I must be wrong because I won't accept the terms you keep changing.
I have repeatedly put down my position as a coherent argument and you have not responded to it nor has anyone else. They just keep goading me about a bet that I am not interested in once the terms have changed.
But you cannot understand that I am sure.
paisello,
Shouldn't be too hard to pay 10 "pro" poker players to agree with you. $500 each should do it. Hell, maybe even less by just staking them into a small satellite tourney, lol.
Quote: paisielloThat's what I was thinking.
no where do I see anything here that said anything about paying someone for their time. He clearly is talking bribery and you clearly quote him and say, "that's what I was thinking." You were the one that wanted to pick the pros, and this is the only way you would make the bet. This can't be anymore obviousQuote: AxelWolfQuote: EdgeLooker
paisello,
Shouldn't be too hard to pay 10 "pro" poker players to agree with you. $500 each should do it. Hell, maybe even less by just staking them into a small satellite tourney, lol.
Quote: AxelWolfQuote: EdgeLooker
paisello,
Shouldn't be too hard to pay 10 "pro" poker players to agree with you. $500 each should do it. Hell, maybe even less by just staking them into a small satellite tourney, lol.
So what? You think they were going to sign a notarized affidavit (that's what it would probably have taken) on their own time to settle a silly bet that Anon proposed? You don't comprehend the way the world works if that's what you think.
Quote: AxelWolfno where do I see anything here that said anything about paying someone for their time. He clearly is talking bribery and you clearly quote him and say that's what I was thinking. You were the one that wanted to pick the pros and this is the only way you would make the bet. This can't be anymore obvious
I wasn't talking about bribery. The poster only says "pay". And that is all I was thinking otherwise why would I disclose it to everyone on the forum including Anon who proposed the bet? Did you really think they were going to do it for free?
Anon was the one who let me pick the pros and he was the one who set the terms that I would agree to. Not the terms that you tried to change.
You seem to read into things in other people's posts that just aren't there. And you STILL keep bringing the bet up as if it somehow proves you are right, which it doesn't!
Quote: AxelWolfPAY THEM TO "AGREE" WITH YOU and you know dam well what he meant He didn't say pay them to give an opinion. Are you serious? You really want anyone to believe this? People are going to start thinking you are a blatant lair and weasel. Also the LOL would be a dead giveaway.
Did you expect me to pay them to disagree with me??? The LOL was because the poster realized like me how stupid the bet was that Anon proposed. Did I mention by the way that he was the one who proposed the bet, not me? Maybe I forgot to point that out before.
And you again have just personally insulted me.
Quote: AxelWolfIt was discussed about having to pay them a fee for doing at a different time. Why talk about it again?
Your are the one bringing this up not me.
Because you really didn't want to make a bet in the first place you just wanted to act tough you wanted to scare him off by simply suggesting this bet was not going to be a fair one and you would pay people off.Quote: paisielloI wasn't talking about bribery. The poster only says "pay". And that is all I was thinking otherwise why would I disclose it to everyone on the forum including Anon who proposed the bet?
Quote: AxelWolfBecause you really didn't want to make a bet in the first place you just wanted to act tough you wanted to scare him off by simply suggesting this bet was not going to be a fair one and you would pay people off.
You're right only about one thing: I wasn't interested in betting in the first place. But Anon proposed the stupid bet, not me. How is a bet unfair to Anon if he is the one proposing the terms? Stupid bet, yes, but not unfair. He dropped out once he realized this.
And I wasn't going to pay people off, I was going to compensate credible professionals for their time. Just like you do in a court of law and I disclosed this at the very beginning. That's all there is to it.
But you will not understand this.
I meant to say. You talked about how players would want to be compensated and you didn't want to be charged for them fees. this is why im dead certain when you said " that's what I was thinking" WE ALL KNOW you were indicating a PAYOFFQuote: paisielloYour are the one bringing this up not me.
The compensation talk was in totally different arias of the conversation.
not one sane person would think you meant compensation as a posed to a pay off or bribery for saying what you wanted them to.
He said PAY THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU. not pay them for an opinion. WHY would he LOL at the end? DON'T BE SILLY.Quote: paisielloYou're right only about one thing: I wasn't interested in betting in the first place. But Anon proposed the stupid bet, not me. How is a bet unfair to Anon if he is the one proposing the terms? Stupid bet, yes, but not unfair. He dropped out once he realized this.
And I wasn't going to pay people off, I was going to compensate credible professionals for their time. Just like you do in a court of law and I disclosed this at the very beginning. That's all there is to it.
But you will not understand this.
You said it smart ass way, with a one line remark, as in, ha ha that's what I was thinking
