Local bookies and "honor"
Just wondering what you guys think about "honor" in an illegal scenario in which the player is also taken advantage of, commonly.
No bookie is going to give an unknown major credit. First you have to be introduced somehow. If a friend of yours vouches for you then he has to either make up for you being a deadbeat or at the least his standing is going to fall. Now, if you pay a few losses at some point the friend will say, "he was good before" and it will not be on him. But welch on your first loss and you screw your friend.
But lets assume you are on your own. You have a small loss and the bookie may eat it, but spread the word that you are a deadbeat. If it is a bigger loss, expect to be hassled. Might even get a few broken bones. Your debt may be sold to a loan shark who is better at collections than running a wire room. At this point you have real problems. People can and do get their heads broken if they are in debt to the wrong bookie. A car dealer local to me had his house blown up over it. The cops "found" him in the backyard six months later.
Honor? Depends on the player. Many players work with the local runner and to welch brings many problems so they pay. It is said John Gotti paid his losses not out of honor but because for a boss to be a welch looked bad plus he wanted to keep his action. OTOH Henry Hill and Tony Spilotro just told the bookies to drop dead if they lost.
To quote Frank Rosenthal, "they don't need DNB, they size you up."
Quote: LandoI've been wondering about this a long time, having heard a few examples and being told by friends. Does honor really exist and "your word" or only inasmuch as you practice it practically speaking. The point I'm getting at is that the only real thing a bookie has is your past performance or verified trust. That is, if he lets you go on credit unchecked (due to bad odds, tilt, or whatever) isn't that just as much on him as it is the player? The whole honoring your debts is a weird idea to me, because no professional bookie is credit, really, it's post up which means you have the money to gamble by definition. The check is that you don't pay up, you don't get action --- you're cut off. That's the real issue. No idiot is gonna ruin a smooth running business over a few stiffs when all the odds are in his favor and he has many more guys that'll lose willingly over a long period of time.
Just wondering what you guys think about "honor" in an illegal scenario in which the player is also taken advantage of, commonly.
Funny you should ask. A member here was permanently banned " for allegedly welching on a bet". That's what it says in an entry to the Suspension List on 1/27/15 next to strictlyAP'S name. Was the bet legal? Did it violate Forum Rule 8? Have other bets here violated Forum Rule 8? Did a certain person pay taxes on a weight loss bet?
A "secret administrator" conveniently materialized to ban strictlyAP and was never heard from again. Many here wonder if there really was a secret administrator. There must have been because lying can get a person banned. I don't think anyone here would lie and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so. Honor? Not paying a debt to the government or not paying a debt to the person you lost to, what's the difference?
Quote: 1BBFunny you should ask. A member here was permanently banned " for allegedly welching on a bet". That's what it says in an entry to the Suspension List on 1/27/15 next to strictlyAP'S name. Was the bet legal? Did it violate Forum Rule 8? Have other bets here violated Forum Rule 8? Did a certain person pay taxes on a weight loss bet?
A "secret administrator" conveniently materialized to ban strictlyAP and was never heard from again. Many here wonder if there really was a secret administrator. There must have been because lying can get a person banned. I don't think anyone here would lie and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so. Honor? Not paying a debt to the government or not paying a debt to the person you lost to, what's the difference?
Never miss an opportunity to point out your issues with how the site is run, do you? Just like I try to point it out when I see it. But "changes are coming", right?
Quote: BozNever miss an opportunity to point out your issues with how the site is run, do you? Just like I try to point it out when I see it. But "changes are coming", right?
Two cases of OCD?
Quote: BozNever miss an opportunity to point out your issues with how the site is run, do you? Just like I try to point it out when I see it. But "changes are coming", right?
There's our Boz! This would be a perfect time to read my signature, Boz. Take your time and let it sink in.
A "friend" of mine bets with a bookie in Las Vegas. The level of trust is so great that recently the bookie got way upside down on a game and asked some of his better customers if he could have a couple of weeks to settle up. As far as I know they all agreed and everyone was paid up in about two weeks.
Making an agreement you intend not to honor is a cardinal gambling sin. People who do this will never get a second chance with me.
Quote: 1BBThere's our Boz! This would be a perfect time to read my signature, Boz. Take your time and let it sink in.
Thanks for letting me know I may be ignorant. Naturally your not calling me ignorant because that's not your game. You think you are smarter than all of us and play by the rules as you interpreted them. Even if you disagree with them and like to let everyone know that at every opportunity.
But I'm not a big fan of Ghandi anyways. Honestly I get sick of his followers calling everyday offering to lower my credit card rates if I just give them my number.
Quote: BozThanks for letting me know I may be ignorant. Naturally your not calling me ignorant because that's not your game. You think you are smarter than all of us and play by the rules as you interpreted them. Even if you disagree with them and like to let everyone know that at every opportunity.
But I'm not a big fan of Ghandi anyways. Honestly I get sick of his followers calling everyday offering to lower my credit card rates if I just give them my number.
Having followers of my own, I can certainly empathize with you. They don't always play by the rules. Why are you getting all those calls? Don't tell me you're paying interest on credit cards.
Quote: bigfoot66If you borrowed $1000 on a credit card and then did not pay the bill the credit card people would not file a lawsuit over such a small amount of money.
Actually, they would. I speak from personal experience.
Quote: thegov2k2Actually, they would. I speak from personal experience.
A credit card company sued you over $1,000? care to be more specific? I'm sure it happened but it is very unusual they would pursue that quantity of money.
Quote: bigfoot66A credit card company sued you over $1,000? care to be more specific? I'm sure it happened but it is very unusual they would pursue that quantity of money.
Was it the credit card company or a debt collection company that bought the debt pennies on the dollar? I could see the latter being more inclined to at least file a suit as they may have the process done in a very low cost manner, whether they would actually go to court to get a verdict would be the question.
By the way, my original post was more geared at longer term people that had established some sort of trust, not shot takers. I'd be the first to say that in my opinion, though I don't know, the only guy a bookie might get pissed off about is one who won, collected, then stiffed when he lost. Stiffs are part of the game. If you let a guy get too far tilt, you're risking a stiff. That's just a fact, it seems to me. It's got nothing to do with honor when he can't pay, and you knew it, but let the free roll continue aware or unawares.
Quote: 1BB
A "secret administrator" conveniently materialized to ban strictlyAP and was never heard from again. Many here wonder if there really was a secret administrator. There must have been because lying can get a person banned. I don't think anyone here would lie and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so. Honor? Not paying a debt to the government or not paying a debt to the person you lost to, what's the difference?
I'm usually pretty tolerant of this kind of thing, and actually have fun with it, but I feel like this constant question of the existence of a, "Secret Administrator," effectively calls the integrity of the Forum into question. I understand you're not explicitly saying that there wasn't, but you are initiating discussion of that matter in this thread.
That having been said, I'm going to say this for the last time, there was, in fact, a secret Administrator who executed the ban. Period. End of sentence. I know who it was.
The SA executed the ban and then spoke with three other Administrators to give the opportunity to veto the ban, none of them chose to. I was not one of them, but as I have said before, I wouldn't have Nuked someone for that reason, but nor would I have felt strongly enough about the new precedent to veto the Nuke.
Anyway, every time we have this question of whether or not there was actually a SA, I believe that the integrity of the Forum, itself, is being called into question. If the question is posed once, twice, three times, that's all well and good, but this has become pervasive. I have no problem debating the merits of the new precedent that was set whatsoever, but any further question about whether or not there was, in fact, a SA who initiated that ban will constitute Trolling.
"there WAS, in fact, a secret Administrator."Quote: Mission146I'm usually pretty tolerant of this kind of thing, and actually have fun with it, but I feel like this constant question of the existence of a, "Secret Administrator," effectively calls the integrity of the Forum into question. I understand you're not explicitly saying that there wasn't, but you are initiating discussion of that matter in this thread.
That having been said, I'm going to say this for the last time, there was, in fact, a secret Administrator who executed the ban. Period. End of sentence. I know who it was.
The SA executed the ban and then spoke with three other Administrators to give the opportunity to veto the ban, none of them chose to. I was not one of them, but as I have said before, I wouldn't have Nuked someone for that reason, but nor would I have felt strongly enough about the new precedent to veto the Nuke.
Anyway, every time we have this question of whether or not there was actually a SA, I believe that the integrity of the Forum, itself, is being called into question. If the question is posed once, twice, three times, that's all well and good, but this has become pervasive. I have no problem debating the merits of the new precedent that was set whatsoever, but any further question about whether or not there was, in fact, a SA who initiated that ban will constitute Trolling.
Is there no longer a "secret Administrator"?
Quote: 1BBFunny you should ask. A member here was permanently banned " for allegedly welching on a bet". That's what it says in an entry to the Suspension List on 1/27/15 next to strictlyAP'S name. Was the bet legal? Did it violate Forum Rule 8? Have other bets here violated Forum Rule 8? Did a certain person pay taxes on a weight loss bet?
A "secret administrator" conveniently materialized to ban strictlyAP and was never heard from again. Many here wonder if there really was a secret administrator. There must have been because lying can get a person banned. I don't think anyone here would lie and I'm not accusing anyone of doing so. Honor? Not paying a debt to the government or not paying a debt to the person you lost to, what's the difference?
Quote: Mission146I'm usually pretty tolerant of this kind of thing, and actually have fun with it, but I feel like this constant question of the existence of a, "Secret Administrator," effectively calls the integrity of the Forum into question. I understand you're not explicitly saying that there wasn't, but you are initiating discussion of that matter in this thread.
That having been said, I'm going to say this for the last time, there was, in fact, a secret Administrator who executed the ban. Period. End of sentence. I know who it was.
The SA executed the ban and then spoke with three other Administrators to give the opportunity to veto the ban, none of them chose to. I was not one of them, but as I have said before, I wouldn't have Nuked someone for that reason, but nor would I have felt strongly enough about the new precedent to veto the Nuke.
Anyway, every time we have this question of whether or not there was actually a SA, I believe that the integrity of the Forum, itself, is being called into question. If the question is posed once, twice, three times, that's all well and good, but this has become pervasive. I have no problem debating the merits of the new precedent that was set whatsoever, but any further question about whether or not there was, in fact, a SA who initiated that ban will constitute Trolling.
I'm glad I read to the end of this, because I found 1BB's post exactly as offensive as you did. In fact, more so, enough that I was going to give him a vacation for it, but I'll defer to your not having done so, Mission. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike takes action, though.
Mike's integrity (as the person who revealed it was a SA) should not be in question, but in that post, 1BB makes him (and us) look like a liar, as if we're hiding behind imaginary people. It was a SA who instigated that ban. I (among others, which I think I said at the time) was asked by that person, and did not veto it, either.
I'm done talking about this.
I know, I may have jokingly insinuated something to the effect that the SA was just a ruse(see my quotes above) but I was just joking. There's been SA's before, so why not believe there WAS one at the time?Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: Mission146I'm usually pretty tolerant of this kind of thing, and actually have fun with it, but I feel like this constant question of the existence of a, "Secret Administrator," effectively calls the integrity of the Forum into question. I understand you're not explicitly saying that there wasn't, but you are initiating discussion of that matter in this thread.
That having been said, I'm going to say this for the last time, there was, in fact, a secret Administrator who executed the ban. Period. End of sentence. I know who it was.
The SA executed the ban and then spoke with three other Administrators to give the opportunity to veto the ban, none of them chose to. I was not one of them, but as I have said before, I wouldn't have Nuked someone for that reason, but nor would I have felt strongly enough about the new precedent to veto the Nuke.
Anyway, every time we have this question of whether or not there was actually a SA, I believe that the integrity of the Forum, itself, is being called into question. If the question is posed once, twice, three times, that's all well and good, but this has become pervasive. I have no problem debating the merits of the new precedent that was set whatsoever, but any further question about whether or not there was, in fact, a SA who initiated that ban will constitute Trolling.
I'm glad I read to the end of this, because I found 1BB's post exactly as offensive as you did. In fact, more so, enough that I was going to give him a vacation for it, but I'll defer to your not having done so, Mission. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike takes action, though.
Mike's integrity (as the person who revealed it was a SA) should not be in question, but in that post, 1BB makes him (and us) look like a liar, as if we're hiding behind imaginary people. It was a SA who instigated that ban. I (among others, which I think I said at the time) was asked by that person, and did not veto it, either.
I'm done talking about this.
Can you answer my question I posed to Mission?
Quote: AxelWolfI know, I may have jokingly insinuated something to the effect that the SA was just a ruse(see my quotes above) but I was just joking. There's been SA's before, so why not believe there WAS one at the time?Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: Mission146I'm usually pretty tolerant of this kind of thing, and actually have fun with it, but I feel like this constant question of the existence of a, "Secret Administrator," effectively calls the integrity of the Forum into question. I understand you're not explicitly saying that there wasn't, but you are initiating discussion of that matter in this thread.
That having been said, I'm going to say this for the last time, there was, in fact, a secret Administrator who executed the ban. Period. End of sentence. I know who it was.
The SA executed the ban and then spoke with three other Administrators to give the opportunity to veto the ban, none of them chose to. I was not one of them, but as I have said before, I wouldn't have Nuked someone for that reason, but nor would I have felt strongly enough about the new precedent to veto the Nuke.
Anyway, every time we have this question of whether or not there was actually a SA, I believe that the integrity of the Forum, itself, is being called into question. If the question is posed once, twice, three times, that's all well and good, but this has become pervasive. I have no problem debating the merits of the new precedent that was set whatsoever, but any further question about whether or not there was, in fact, a SA who initiated that ban will constitute Trolling.
I'm glad I read to the end of this, because I found 1BB's post exactly as offensive as you did. In fact, more so, enough that I was going to give him a vacation for it, but I'll defer to your not having done so, Mission. I wouldn't be surprised if Mike takes action, though.
Mike's integrity (as the person who revealed it was a SA) should not be in question, but in that post, 1BB makes him (and us) look like a liar, as if we're hiding behind imaginary people. It was a SA who instigated that ban. I (among others, which I think I said at the time) was asked by that person, and did not veto it, either.
I'm done talking about this.
Can you answer my question I posed to Mission?
To the best of my knowledge, that person is still a SA. I'm not always current on who is and isn't.
Quote: 1BBFair enough. I have now been silenced. Let the record show that I disagree with your use of "constant", "pervasive" and "trolling".
You're not silenced, if you want to discuss the merits of whether or not that should be a Nukable offense, start a thread, and we'll do that all day long.
My point is that Administration has made multiple official statements concerning the SA that did the original ban, there's no reason to answer to that anymore. Members can either believe us or not believe us, but calling into question the integrity of the Forum and the honesty of the Administrators who spoke on the matter, which includes Wizard, no less, is Trolling.
It is pervasive, "Spread throughout," it enters into Discussions that have nothing to do with that subject matter. That's pervasive.
I agree with you on constant, in retrospect, and retract constant.
The Trolling is going to have to be subjective. I would say challenging the integrity of the Administrators and Forum by suggesting that, or reminding others that other Members have suggested that, the official statements of Administrators are complete fabrications.
Or, if you prefer, we'll just say that I banned StrictlyAP and created a new Forum precedent unilaterally. If somebody has to own it, I'll own it, even though I had exactly nothing to do with it. If an actual lie is somehow more palatable to Membership than the truth, though, so be it.
Quote: AxelWolf"there WAS, in fact, a secret Administrator."
Is there no longer a "secret Administrator"?
As far as I know, that individual is still a Secret Administrator and I believe there is at least one other.
Quote: LandoI've been wondering about this a long time, having heard a few examples and being told by friends. Does honor really exist and "your word" or only inasmuch as you practice it practically speaking. The point I'm getting at is that the only real thing a bookie has is your past performance or verified trust. That is, if he lets you go on credit unchecked (due to bad odds, tilt, or whatever) isn't that just as much on him as it is the player? The whole honoring your debts is a weird idea to me, because no professional bookie is credit, really, it's post up which means you have the money to gamble by definition. The check is that you don't pay up, you don't get action --- you're cut off. That's the real issue. No idiot is gonna ruin a smooth running business over a few stiffs when all the odds are in his favor and he has many more guys that'll lose willingly over a long period of time.
Just wondering what you guys think about "honor" in an illegal scenario in which the player is also taken advantage of, commonly.
Similar to an earlier thread.
Justified not to pay back?
Quote: TankoSimilar to an earlier thread.
Justified not to pay back?
My thoughts exactly.
All I'm saying is that in a non-post up environment, especially one that is illegal, it has built in checks. Just like someone said on a CC analogy, the cost of business is the deadbeat for the lender. The benefit is that they get to charge exorbitant rates to lendees. The bookie is barely any different, and in fact most try to take advantage of their situations in the same way CC companies have little black type. What's the common thread? Both make plenty of money/have the odds with them as far as being responsible. Also, both can't enforce anything necessarily, so they have to be careful about to whom they lend, or to what degree. Right? It's very simple.
You can't say, as a bookie, I ONLY want to benefit (and never lose) from guys who chase --- but when they chase HARD (and I let them), to the degree that they say to themselves, "What's the point?" I'm not going to bet anymore = I'm bankrupt. It's the cost of business. I'm not suggesting anyone stiff, don't get me wrong, but to act like in a credit business it's all word and "honor" and all this crap is BS. It's a game, an illegal game at that, and if you limit your guys, you get them coming back because you have the drug and they can pay it. Give them no hope to ever come back from such a hole and of COURSE they are going to be gonzo = bankrupt.
It's not that crazy or controversial, really.
By the way, the other reason books [typically] don't stiff is because they have a big advantage on the player (read: they all make money) and their cost of business in that regard is to be reliable, because they know they're always making money long term. Notice that they limit guys who win, but they don't limit guys who lose and then yell and act all righteous when the guys they let get too deep don't pay. It's a double standard.
Again, no one could ever use this argument with a post up, because by definition you know the risk and reward of every bet when you make it and your money is very truly there or not there.
Quote: tongniA man's word is his bond, a gambler's doubly so. Never make agreements that you may not be able to honor, always abide by the spirit of an agreement when it ensures a fairer outcome, and ambiguous terms should be clarified beforehand.
Making an agreement you intend not to honor is a cardinal gambling sin. People who do this will never get a second chance with me.
The above was a reply to this post
Quote: BozThanks for letting me know I may be ignorant. Naturally your not calling me ignorant because that's not your game. You think you are smarter than all of us and play by the rules as you interpreted them. Even if you disagree with them and like to let everyone know that at every opportunity.
But I'm not a big fan of Ghandi anyways. Honestly I get sick of his followers calling everyday offering to lower my credit card rates if I just give them my number.
Boz and 1BB
Your little war of words is cute, for a few days. Then not so much.
I don't know who started it, I really don't care.
Can you at least give it a rest? Maybe for a month or fifteen?
That, my friends, is a serious question.
I don't get serious very often.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLBoz and 1BB
Your little war of words is cute, for a few days. Then not so much.
I don't know who started it, I really don't care.
Can you at least give it a rest? Maybe for a month or fifteen?
That, my friends, is a serious question.
I don't get serious very often.
Are you really going to do this? Boz and I are just fine. Why do you bring up something from five days ago? I think there's a name for that, in fact I know there's a name for that.
Don't you have a waterfall to find?
Quote: 1BBAre you really going to do this? Boz and I are just fine. Why do you bring up something from five days ago? I think there's a name for that, in fact I know there's a name for that.
Don't you have a waterfall to find?
I actually didn't realize there was another couple of pages of posts on the subject.
You've already told me not to apologize, so I will not.
I could leave my post in place, or I could delete or edit it.
For now, I'll leave it as is.
Might not be timely, but it's still relevant.
You say there's a name for that, you don't say the name, you just say there is a name.
Nice little word dance. You got a name? Say the name.
You worried about the admins?
I give you permission to say the name, and beg for your forgiveness from the admins.
You say?
I find it weird the whole "bookies are honorable" thing; they are businessmen involved in usury type ventures, then act all surprised if a guy stiffs (not all, smart ones know but probably don't say out loud the truth).
These problems all vanish if you are a book that requires post up, right? Then why do bookies offer "credit"? Exactly, to get another advantage. There's no honor in that.
https://www.realbookies.com/settling-with-players-313
As I've said before, keeping players so that you can get long term gains on them is balanced by their desire for action, your leash on credit, and how they feel about your "service". Going back to what I was saying in previous posts (you can check page 3), acting like taking money on credit when people chase (as if you loaned them money legitimately) is silly. Credit and payment are only as good as long as the player finds you a valuable service, whatever that means.
Post up shops know that they ultimately make out with less (yes even counting for stiffs, ask any local) for not dealing with credit like locals do. Their benefit is that there is no doubt as to the veracity and understanding of making bets = you have the money, you make the bet and cash or lose it. With locals it isn't like that, I'm still surprised to this day that people put up this front that there is some honor in all this. There's not. It's a business. If books could stiff, they would. It would ruin their business though, because no one would play with them, and thus, they wouldn't make the kind of money they do (a good amount). It's just a business decision on their end (the right one). It's got nothing to do with principle or honor. Look at the link if you doubt that.
Quote: LandoYes they do. Here's an example of how a lot, but not all bookies think --- but you know they are all in for every edge they can get. I'm not saying all bookies or every bookie does XYZ, but to think they aren't formed by this kind of thinking in general, a lot of which is dishonorable, is a joke. Check it out:
https://www.realbookies.com/settling-with-players-313
As I've said before, keeping players so that you can get long term gains on them is balanced by their desire for action, your leash on credit, and how they feel about your "service". Going back to what I was saying in previous posts (you can check page 3), acting like taking money on credit when people chase (as if you loaned them money legitimately) is silly. Credit and payment are only as good as long as the player finds you a valuable service, whatever that means.
Post up shops know that they ultimately make out with less (yes even counting for stiffs, ask any local) for not dealing with credit like locals do. Their benefit is that there is no doubt as to the veracity and understanding of making bets = you have the money, you make the bet and cash or lose it. With locals it isn't like that, I'm still surprised to this day that people put up this front that there is some honor in all this. There's not. It's a business. If books could stiff, they would. It would ruin their business though, because no one would play with them, and thus, they wouldn't make the kind of money they do (a good amount). It's just a business decision on their end (the right one). It's got nothing to do with principle or honor. Look at the link if you doubt that.
Do you owe some bookies money? Is this the reason for your great disdain towards them? Ive had many experiences with bookies in my pre-enlightened days.... and they were not good memories to say the least. I wish they had legalized sports betting when I was younger. It would have changed my life. I was young and dumb and went way over my head.... and the bookies let me. Honor? lol Thugs is more like it. Everyone is out for money man. Its always all about the money. Im glad they are finally legalizing sports betting in many states. Put the frikin criminal thugs out of business. I could write a book ... maybe one day I will.
Quote: WatchMeWinDo you owe some bookies money? Is this the reason for your great disdain towards them? Ive had many experiences with bookies in my pre-enlightened days.... and they were not good memories to say the least. I wish they had legalized sports betting when I was younger. It would have changed my life. I was young and dumb and went way over my head.... and the bookies let me. Honor? lol Thugs is more like it. Everyone is out for money man. Its always all about the money. Im glad they are finally legalizing sports betting in many states. Put the frikin criminal thugs out of business. I could write a book ... maybe one day I will.
I live in Las Vegas and I can tell you that legal sports betting does not get rid of bookies. Because of credit, bookies still exist.
Quote: DRichI live in Las Vegas and I can tell you that legal sports betting does not get rid of bookies. Because of credit, bookies still exist.
I dont disagree with that. It is a HUGE market and people just love to gamble.... especially NFL. Plus the fact that you dont have a win loss record on the gov books with your local book man. But what people should be aware of is that if you dont have the funds... dont put in the bets with the bookies. It is easy for young people to go over their heads and then chase and find themselves tens of thousands in debt to guys that will use all types of scare tactics to get their paper.
Quote: WatchMeWinDo you owe some bookies money? Is this the reason for your great disdain towards them? Ive had many experiences with bookies in my pre-enlightened days.... and they were not good memories to say the least. I wish they had legalized sports betting when I was younger. It would have changed my life. I was young and dumb and went way over my head.... and the bookies let me. Honor? lol Thugs is more like it. Everyone is out for money man. Its always all about the money. Im glad they are finally legalizing sports betting in many states. Put the frikin criminal thugs out of business. I could write a book ... maybe one day I will.
No, I just find it stupid that people all follow along like drones on the whole thing about honor and principle, when the link proves above (and you know) they are as shifty as any "stiff". I have no naive notions that everyone is out for cash, I have no problem with that in the strictest sense of the term, but let's be honest about the realities. That's basically why I posted. It's sorta like how when guys on the internet act like if you "owed" a bookie he'd come and break your legs, lol. As if he isn't making money off 90% of his client base and it's worth even a second to think about.
They'll always exist though, and it's not all bad, because I get it, credit is a convenience and the tax implications are the biggest thing for serious players. There's no way corrupt, broke governments can ever compete with that unless they have reasonable prices and allow you to walk out without having to worry about being tracked or reported. That is the case in the UK, for example, but if you win a couple thousand pounds they label you as [whatever word they use for winner] and then cut you off. See how funny it is? You can chase all the bets in the world and pay them, but when you win bookies cut you off. Essentially the same/flip side of stiffs. As if the credit losses the stiffs ran up were actually real money in the first place. Gimme a break. They benefit from it, yet don't admit that the business cost is the stiff at the end of his bad run. Comical stuff that no one says out loud and few have courage enough to even post on the internet, like me.
Is that the gist of it?
Quote: billryanIf you have a point, you aren't doing a very good job of explaining it. I just went and reread the entire thread and cant begin to understand what it is you are going on about. Evidently there is a world where bookies are considered good and honorable and you think that is a false impression and in reality they are all scum.
Is that the gist of it?
No, they're not scum, just like players, there are probably an equal percentage of truly despicable guys on both sides --- the problem is that it's not even worthwhile to compare them, because one side feeds on another with a big edge.
It's possible that you just don't understand what I'm saying, which wouldn't be a problem on my end. To show that that's not the case, please tell me where my logic is incorrect. That's basically why I post (at least), in order for others to show me where I'm going wrong, if I'm going wrong.
My summary point, if you don't get it (read the title again) is that referring to anything in the betting game or bookie world as "honor" is fundamentally misunderstanding what's going on. If some players are "stiffs" then equally, most bookies are "cheats". I've given numerous reasons why, so I won't re-hash until someone counters those. And yes, this thread got weirdly sidetrack a page or so back, I have no idea what they were talking about.
If a player doesn’t pay at the end of a determined time frame, they are scum.
If a book doesn’t pay at the end of a determined time frame, they are scum.
Very few gray areas if both sides agree on terms before placing/ accepting any bets.
I'm sorry, we don't like that you are winning, you can't bet with us/that way/we change the menus. Hmmm. That's honorable.
Again, I'm just for being honest. The only real way to truly counteract or contradict the points I've made is post up. No one loses.
AND EVEN in that case, many bookmakers will not take action from particular people, even with all of their "edges". Even though they take the same bets from the general public.
Again, it's customer service and a business model/cost. If you are good at those, you retain players. My point mainly in these posts is to show one and all that stiffs don't exist in a vacuum. They can, but there are many instances where books limit, pile on, take extra juice, and then when a guy wins, change all sorts of ways until Sunday.
Let's be honest.
1. There will be disputes. For example, what happens if there is a starting pitcher change in baseball and it wasn't discussed what to do in that event. Another one I had involved a past World Cup game that ended in a tie in regulation and went into overtime and there was some argument about whether the bet was on the regulation period or who won the game. You just never know what will end up in a dispute until it happens. If you get into a dispute your choices will be to concede the loss or lose a friendship.
2. You will discover some of your friends are deadbeats. This is quite simple, some so-called friends will just stiff you. I had a so-called friend who stiffed me because he started singing the blues about money -- despite the fact that he drove a brand new Bentley and owed me an amount in the low four figures only. It just goes to show that some people have zero honor.
3. It is a pain to do all the accounting.
* Or is it "whom"?
As to your second point, losing deadbeat " friends" is a net win. Be happy it was on a wager and not a loan.
Everyone wants new customers and wants customers to spend more money with them.
Offering credit is not necessarily dishonorable; its a service. It whets appetites.
Now do bookies employ "leg breakers" Yes, Often. That does not mean a leg breaker goes around breaking people's legs. Its merely that he has the reputation of going around town breaking legs to collect debts Most of a legbreaker's work involves standing there and looking real mean and threatening. If the debtor thinks about a possible "lesson" he is likely to pay up in order to avoid it. Though as was explained in Better Call Saul a job that is 90% intimidation always has that 10% that is not.
Some bookies don't lay off bets unless really forced to, some don't hire leg breakers, but its a field wherein there are always "market forces" that drive the action.
When my poker blogging acquaintance got out of jail, her local Dotty's (half a block from her home) would always give her a twenty dollar bill and an ice cream soda. Was that wrong? It was a very appreciated by her and it was a whole lot more than other casinos would give her. Giving credit? Its not necessarily evil. It cheered her up and tided her over for awhile.
Quote: WizardI used to book bets on credit for friends, who* I considered recreational players. Big mistake. Here are the three main problems:
(Snip).
* Or is it "whom"?
It's "whom ", because you're describing the object (friends) of the first clause. If you were describing "I" as the subject of the sentence, you would use who.
From grammarly:
Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence.
I've always said that this is especially true of gambling, and have blogged about it. It can reach a point where it makes no sense not to lend more*, since the client [certain clients] always gives it all back. It becomes a situation where they just totally own this person. I'm repeating myself, but it can come down to getting all the clients money and then some. If this person with the problem has a source of income, the house will get that income, maybe most of it. This person will borrow money from others too, every time, and might lie, cheat, and steal to get money. The house will get that too.
What the Wizard was describing is the other side of the story.
*setting aside ethical considerations
