DeathMatch for 10K: paisiello v. anonimuss (split from Betting When Small Blind)
Quote: AxelWolfI 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 PAYOFF
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.
No, you're wrong as usual. I was talking about other costs and people like the Wizard for example would probably need to be compensated for their time. This was an upfront cost that I didn't want to risk if Anon were to suddenly drop out of the bet which is what he ended up doing. And yet I am the one accused of being to scared to bet.
By pay I meant compensation and that is why I explicitly disclosed this to everyone. If I wanted to cheat somehow then I would not have said anything.
But you will not understand this.
Quote: AxelWolfHe said PAY THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU. not pay them for an opinion. WHY would he LOL at the end? DON'T BE SILLY.
You said it smart ass way, with a one line remark, as in, ha ha that's what I was thinking
Why would I ever pay them or anyone for that matter to NOT AGREE with me? As long as they are credible that is all that matters.
I already explained why he LOL at the end and I simply agreed with him. It was obviously such a stupid bet that Anon made. A bet that you then jumped in on and tried to change the terms on me despite me saying I wasn't interested.
Anon still had a chance to win the bet actually. It is conceivably possible that I could not find 10 credible professionals meeting an agreed upon criteria. But Anon dropped out of the bet before this could be worked out. Did I mention he is the one that dropped out of the bet, not me? Maybe I forgot to point that one out before somehow.
Have you ever been involved in a court case or do you know anything about how the legal system works?
I guess not.
He was absolutely indicating a bribe or payoff, thus the words AGREE WITH YOU and the LOL at the end. EVERYONE knows that is what he meant and we can ask him. If you really didn't understand that their is something very wrong with you. I don't for one minute believe you didnt know thats exactly what he meant because that's exactly what he said.Quote: paisielloNo, you're wrong as usual. I was talking about other costs and people like the Wizard for example would probably need to be compensated for their time. This was an upfront cost that I didn't want to risk if Anon were to suddenly drop out of the bet which is what he ended up doing. And yet I am the one accused of being to scared to bet.
By pay I meant compensation and that is why I explicitly disclosed this to everyone. If I wanted to cheat somehow then I would not have said anything.
But you will not understand this.
Quote: AxelWolfHe was absolutely indicating a bribe or payoff the the words AGREE WITH YOU and the LOL at the end. EVERYONE knows that is what he meant and we can ask him. If you really didn't understand that their is something very wrong with you. I don't for one minute believe you didnt know thats exactly what he meant because that's exactly what he said.
Another personal insult.
I don't know what the poster meant other than stating the obvious that I needed to pay credible professionals for their time. And that is why I explicitly responded to what I was thinking so everyone including Anon would realize that this is what I was going to do. If it were otherwise then I wouldn't have disclosed this.
And even if you think it was going to be a bribe (which it wasn't), where did Anon ever say it had to be an honest opinion? He said simply that I could pick the pros. Stupid bet on his part bribery or not.
But you will not understand this.
See if "I payed this expert to agree with me" flys in court.Quote: paisielloWhy would I ever pay them or anyone for that matter to NOT AGREE with me? As long as they are credible that is all that matters.
I already explained why he LOL at the end and I simply agreed with him. It was obviously such a stupid bet that Anon made. A bet that you then jumped in on and tried to change the terms on me despite me saying I wasn't interested.
Anon still had a chance to win the bet actually. It is conceivably possible that I could not find 10 credible professionals meeting an agreed upon criteria. But Anon dropped out of the bet before this could be worked out. Did I mention he is the one that dropped out of the bet, not me? Maybe I forgot to point that one out before somehow.
Have you ever been involved in a court case or do you know anything about how the legal system works?
I guess not.
Quote: AxelWolfSee if "I payed this expert to agree with me" flys in court.
That's exactly what happens. The debate comes from whether the jury or judge believes that the plaintiff's expert witnesses are more credible than the defense's.
In Anon's case he was just going to let me pick all the witnesses! Not too smart a bet to make.
I do agree with this, It was a stupid bet. It was very apparent you didn't want to play fair. The entire gist of the bet was to find out if your assessment of the hand was correct. Not to find out if 1/10,000th of the poker community would agree with obvious bad advice, IE Big Foot is real.Quote: paisielloAnother personal insult.
And even if you think it was going to be a bribe (which it wasn't), where did Anon ever say it had to be an honest opinion? He said simply that I could pick the pros. Stupid bet on his part bribery or not.
.
this is what gamblers call a weasel bet and a con. Heads I win tails you lose type of thing. The good old i bet i can guess how much money you have in your wallet between 10 and 20 thousand
They are first supposed to find an expert that agrees with them, then pay them for their time. Not find an expert and pay them to agree with them.Quote: paisielloThat's exactly what happens. The debate comes from whether the jury or judge believes that the plaintiff's expert witnesses are more credible than the defense's.
.
Quote: AxelWolfI do agree with this, It was a stupid bet. It was very apparent you didn't want to play fair. The entire gist of the bet was to find out if your assessment of the hand was correct. Not to find out if 1/10,000th of the poker community would agree with obvious bad advice, IE Big Foot is real.
this is what gamblers call a weasel bet and a con.
Except I didn't propose it, Anon was the one who did. Remember? Maybe you forgot this point.
His whole agenda was to show me down by trying to bet me. And when I took him up on it he abruptly disappeared. Then you come along trying to keep changing the terms of the bet despite me saying over and over that I wasn't interested.
And for the record I don't care what 9,999/10,000th of the poker community thinks. They are weak poker players like yourself. I care what the professionals who have been very successful over many decades think. They are credible. Not players like you.
Quote: AxelWolfThey are first supposed to find an expert that agrees with them, then pay them for their time. Not find an expert and pay them to agree with them.
Goes to show how little you know.
I meant pros in the poker community. I know there are very few that would agree with you. not any of the top 30.Quote: paisielloExcept I didn't propose it, Anon was the one who did. Remember? Maybe you forgot this point.
His whole agenda was to show me down by trying to bet me. And when I took him up on it he abruptly disappeared. Then you come along trying to keep changing the terms of the bet despite me saying over and over that I wasn't interested.
And for the record I don't care what 9,999/10,000th of the poker community thinks. They are weak poker players like yourself. I care what the professionals who have been very successful over many decades think. They are credible. Not players like you.
Quote: paisielloGoes to show how little you know.
Ummm....You do realize that if the expert did not actually agree, but testified that he DID agree, bribed or not, that would be perjury if he were under oath.
Quote: AxelWolfI meant pros in the poker community. I know there are very few that would agree with you. not any of the top 30.
Is Hellmuth still in the Top 30? I bet Hellmuth would agree for $500 if Paisello could get ahold of him, and then five minutes later, play 54 suited out of the small blind with four limpers before him.
Quote: AxelWolfI meant pros in the poker community. I know there are very few that would agree with you. not any of the top 30.
And I don't care what 9,999/10,000 pros in the poker community think either. I want the ones who have been around for decades and proved their competence. Not the Chris Moneymaker's. Not the Jamie Gold's nor the Tom Dwan's. And certainly not YOUR top 30 list. What a joke that would be.
Quote: Mission146Ummm....You do realize that if the expert did not actually agree, but testified that he DID agree, bribed or not, that would be perjury if he were under oath.
Ummm....I have news for you: the real world works differently than you think it does.
Quote: Mission146Is Hellmuth still in the Top 30? I bet Hellmuth would agree for $500 if Paisello could get ahold of him, and then five minutes later, play 54 suited out of the small blind with four limpers before him.
Although Hellmuth has been successful in tournaments, he is a weak cash player. There are professionals who would run circles around him in a cash game.
I just recently saw him playing heads up with someone here at the Commerce. Don't know what the stakes were or what they were playing.
So you think its ok for a lawyer to pay an expert whiteness to agree with what ever he tells him, even if its not the expert whiteness's real opinion?Quote: paisielloGoes to show how little you know.
Quote: paisielloUmmm....I have news for you: the real world works differently than you think it does.
Please quote me saying that such never happens, all I said was it would be perjury.
I'm just saying that a professional with integrity would not do it.
yes, yes you are right. That's why I asked you, who you think is qualified. I would like for you to share 3 or 4 people with us you you think is qualified.Quote: paisielloAlthough Hellmuth has been successful in tournaments, he is a weak cash player. There are professionals who would run circles around him in a cash game.
Quote: AxelWolfSo you think its for a lawyer to pay an expert whiteness to agree with what ever he tells him, even if its not the expert whiteness's real opinion?
Well do you think he is going to pay an expert witness NOT to agree with him? Not really the way it works but maybe that is what they do in your hometown.
Quote: AxelWolfyes, yes you are right. That's why I asked you, who you think is qualified. I would like for you to share 3 or 4 people with us you you think is qualified.
I already told you that the names wouldn't mean anything to you. You're looking for celebrities. I'm looking for real professionals who are interested in maximizing their EV. Different circles.
Quote: paisielloWell do you think he is going to pay an expert witness NOT to agree with him? Not really the way it works but maybe that is what they do in your hometown.
No, he's not going to call an expert witness who disagrees to testify, he'll find a different expert witness.
Quote: Mission146Please quote me saying that such never happens, all I said was it would be perjury.
I'm just saying that a professional with integrity would not do it.
And who said anything about integrity? I'm talking about credible experts. Integrity has little to do with it.
Quote: Mission146No, he's not going to call an expert witness who disagrees to testify, he'll find a different expert witness.
Which is exactly what I was going to do. Axel thinks that is cheating somehow.
I'm saying its CHEATING period.Quote: paisielloWell do you think he is going to pay an expert witness NOT to agree with him? Not really the way it works but maybe that is what they do in your hometown.
Its one thing for lawyers to cheat each other. When you deal with people/individuals making a bet there are higher standards and a moral ethics code when it comes to wagers among men. Again No weaseling.
I can only compare it to this: Its one thing if you want to punch someone in a bar. Its another thing if you go around punching babies. Is there a difference?
Quote: AxelWolfI can only compare it to this: Its one thing if you want to punch someone in a bar. Its another thing if you go around punching babies. Is there a difference?
So you're saying Anon is a baby then?
Quote: AxelWolfWhen you deal with people/individuals making a bet there are higher standards and a moral ethics code when it comes to wagers among men.
LOL. Now this is truly the theater of the absurd (if there were any doubts before).
NO paying them to say somthing they normally wouldnt say is cheating its obvious that's what you said you were thinking about doing. Of course you wont admit that. But you did say you were thinking of paying people to AGREE WITH YOU. because that's exactly what he said. If you are claiming you misinterpreted what he said WE are not buying it.Quote: paisielloWhich is exactly what I was going to do. Axel thinks that is cheating somehow.
Quote: paisielloAnd I don't care what 9,999/10,000 pros in the poker community think either. I want the ones who have been around for decades and proved their competence. Not the Chris Moneymaker's. Not the Jamie Gold's nor the Tom Dwan's. And certainly not YOUR top 30 list. What a joke that would be.
Yeah those guys are horrible and have accomplished nothing in poker.
Oh and I'm back from the restricted list. It's confusing why I was on there to begin with, but I digress.
Quote: Lemieux66Yeah those guys are horrible and have accomplished nothing in poker.
Oh and I'm back from the restricted list. It's confusing why I was on there to begin with, but I digress.
Didn't you call him a "legit moron"? You're only supposed to think that, not type it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDidn't you call him a "legit moron"? You're only supposed to think that, not type it.
Ah. I didn't realize that stuff was restrict worthy. I didn't even curse!
LOLQuote: AxiomOfChoiceDidn't you call him a "legit moron"? You're only supposed to think that, not type it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDidn't you call him a "legit moron"? You're only supposed to think that, not type it.
I imagine that opinion is shared by others.
I would have imagined it wouldn't have gone much further after the split from the original thread but here we are 333 odd posts and rolling later.
The only thing I would really like to see is P playing at a live table with some of his poker pro friends and see what they think of his prowess. Now that would be interesting :)
I'm 95% sure he plays online on micro stakes, at best he plays 2/4 limit. or some penny ante home games with grandma. She probably is one of his top picks since he out plays him and heads to bingo with her winnings.Quote: TomspurI'm quite shocked that this thread has gone this far.......
I would have imagined it wouldn't have gone much further after the split from the original thread but here we are 333 odd posts and rolling later.
The only thing I would really like to see is P playing at a live table with some of his poker pro friends and see what they think of his prowess. Now that would be interesting :)
That's the real reason He kept avoiding my question about what limits he plays and who he knows. I have a feeling he didn't want to blatantly lie about his poker play.
If he told the truth about the limits or levels he plays, people would just laugh and and use that as proof he has no rights to be giving poker advice. Its like letting the veterinarian give advice how best to treat a human condition.
I doubt he knows any real poker players personally who make a living at poker. As i said before uncle Chester dose not count. He may participate in some 2+2 or Facebook interaction with Pros.
Quote: TomspurI'm quite shocked that this thread has gone this far.......
I would have imagined it wouldn't have gone much further after the split from the original thread but here we are 333 odd posts and rolling later.
The only thing I would really like to see is P playing at a live table with some of his poker pro friends and see what they think of his prowess. Now that would be interesting :)
The fact that he wouldn't trust PHIL HELLMUTH and his opinion about this hand is compelling. He feels this way, regardless of Phil's 13 bracelets, because he saw him lose in some televised cash games 5 years ago.
Quote: Lemieux66The fact that he wouldn't trust PHIL HELLMUTH and his opinion about this hand is compelling. He feels this way, regardless of Phil's 13 bracelets, because he saw him lose in some televised cash games 5 years ago.
I hope he just forgets about this thread when he comes back but I somehow doubt that!
Quote: TomspurI hope he just forgets about this thread when he comes back but I somehow doubt that!
He raised the bet to 10k and then got embarrassed .
It was clear he knew he was wrong and wasn't gonna back his argument with any bet at all.
Quote: Lemieux66I wonder what he specifically did to get restricted.
Welcome back.
If you look under "Rules" there are sticky topics. The one labeled "Suspension List" tracks who is suspended and why, also for how long. Paisello's is listed there, as is yours. For both of you, the post you made that generated a suspension is hyperlinked for easy reference.
It would probably be worth your effort to look at the other topic as well, a sticky called "Forum Rules". It's not very long.
Both documents, though dated years back, are kept current by the admins. They don't update on the original post date because they are locked threads, and were started years ago.
Quote: beachbumbabsWelcome back.
If you look under "Rules" there are sticky topics. The one labeled "Suspension List" tracks who is suspended and why, also for how long. Paisello's is listed there, as is yours. For both of you, the post you made that generated a suspension is hyperlinked for easy reference.
It would probably be worth your effort to look at the other topic as well, a sticky called "Forum Rules". It's not very long.
Both documents, though dated years back, are kept current by the admins. They don't update on the original post date because they are locked threads, and were started years ago.
If I feel a guy is a moron, and I want to tell him so, is there a proper way to say it? I'm serious!
Quote: Lemieux66If I feel a guy is a moron, and I want to tell him so, is there a proper way to say it? I'm serious!
I understand. It's complex in some ways. A few phrases come to mind, all reminding me of the boss on The Office (Gary something?):
"You might want to rethink that. (here's why)"
"I do not think that will work, and it's likely to waste your time and money."
"I disagree with your premise."
"I stand in opposition to your proposed bill, Senator."
"I don't agree."
"This is why that won't work."
"Mr. Poker Pro said this, and he has 13 WSOP bracelets. I would value his opinion over the one you're offering on this."
"Do you have any facts to back up what you're saying? If so, please share them."
"Your system doesn't work. (here's why)"
"I think your math is correct, but I disagree about the conclusion you draw from it."
"I have a different understanding of that."
"That is incorrect."
"We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I'm sure of what I'm saying."
The decoding of the dog whistles is left to the poster. But I would not ban anyone for saying any of these in the context of an argument on here. Yeah, it's light beer. But not insulting to the person you're answering, or the many, many people reading along.
Such as, "Hey Einstein, that's not still not true no matter how many times you say it."
Quote: rxwineWhat about comparing them to Einstein?
Such as, "Hey Einstein, that's not still not true no matter how many times you say it."
Edgy. I can see S&W saying it to the nearest Muppet. But still obviously meant as a sarcastic attack. So jury's out for me. I'll let the Wizard call it, if he will.
I myself use "no sh%&, Sherlock" in much the same way, but not on this board.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I myself use "no sh%&, Sherlock" in much the same way, but not on this board.
Considering some of the stuff I say, I would expect that comment toward me on a forum with no boundaries. :-\
I made a redundant comment on here just the other day...oops
