Thread Rating:

Poll

2 votes (14.28%)
No votes (0%)
4 votes (28.57%)
No votes (0%)
3 votes (21.42%)
2 votes (14.28%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (7.14%)
2 votes (14.28%)

14 members have voted

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1392
  • Posts: 23469
September 20th, 2021 at 3:48:47 PM permalink
Quote: Deucekies

You're saying you can't shoot out of the rough? I've certainly never heard of that rule before. As long as your ball is in bounds, that is, within the wooden markers on the outer perimeter, you play it as it lies.

  • link to original post



    Thank you. I guess I stand corrected on that one. For some reason, I assumed it was out of bounds, but now I have no idea why I thought that.
    It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
    Wizard
    Administrator
    Wizard
    Joined: Oct 14, 2009
    • Threads: 1392
    • Posts: 23469
    September 20th, 2021 at 4:00:29 PM permalink
    Would I be correct in saying that if Goldfinger couldn't find his ball, he should have re-hit from the tee with a one-stroke penalty? Recall the ball was lost after hitting from the tee.

    In other news, does anyone have anything gambling-related to say about the gin rummy scene? It seems to speak for itself pretty well.


    Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kDdIL0tSeI
    It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter 
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    • Threads: 8
    • Posts: 2188
    September 21st, 2021 at 5:34:02 AM permalink
    At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

    I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

    Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    unJon
    unJon
    Joined: Jul 1, 2018
    • Threads: 14
    • Posts: 2936
    September 21st, 2021 at 5:50:42 AM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

    I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

    Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

  • link to original post


    Maybe they played Hollywood gin scoring rules. That’s how I used to play when I played for $.
    The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter 
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    • Threads: 8
    • Posts: 2188
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:01:36 AM permalink
    Quote: unJon

    Quote: Dieter

    At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

    I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

    Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

  • link to original post


    Maybe they played Hollywood gin scoring rules. That’s how I used to play when I played for $.
  • link to original post



    We didn't get a look at the tally, but Hollywood wouldn't surprise me.

    That's still gonna be an hour and a half of losing hard.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Wizard
    Administrator
    Wizard
    Joined: Oct 14, 2009
    • Threads: 1392
    • Posts: 23469
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:37:27 AM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

    I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

    Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

  • link to original post



    I wonder why Goldfinger agreed to dump the $15,000 back. He was threatened with getting the Miami Police involved, but I doubt they would get mixed up in an allegation of cheating in a private card game.
    It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
    darkoz
    darkoz
    Joined: Dec 22, 2009
    • Threads: 261
    • Posts: 8862
    September 21st, 2021 at 7:16:55 AM permalink
    Quote: Wizard

    Quote: Dieter

    At the $5/point stakes, losing the required $15000 feels like it would take longer than a poolside card game usually runs for.

    I figure about 3 hours if Goldfinger is trying to lose every hand.

    Mr. Pigeon may wonder why Goldfinger is suddenly dumping the game to him.

  • link to original post



    I wonder why Goldfinger agreed to dump the $15,000 back. He was threatened with getting the Miami Police involved, but I doubt they would get mixed up in an allegation of cheating in a private card game.
  • link to original post



    Well, if you were planning a heist of Fort Knox would you take the chance?
    For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
    Wizard
    Administrator
    Wizard
    Joined: Oct 14, 2009
    • Threads: 1392
    • Posts: 23469
    September 21st, 2021 at 7:57:47 AM permalink
    Quote: darkoz

    Well, if you were planning a heist of Fort Knox would you take the chance?

  • link to original post



    Good point!
    It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
    odiousgambit
    odiousgambit
    Joined: Nov 9, 2009
    • Threads: 311
    • Posts: 8623
    September 23rd, 2021 at 7:36:17 AM permalink
    the next Bond may be so 'woke' we don't recognize him?

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/james-bond-director-says-sean-connerys-007-was-a-rapist/
    the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
    Gandler
    Gandler
    Joined: Jan 27, 2014
    • Threads: 32
    • Posts: 1563
    Thanks for this post from:
    odiousgambit
    September 23rd, 2021 at 3:21:35 PM permalink
    Quote: odiousgambit

    the next Bond may be so 'woke' we don't recognize him?

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/james-bond-director-says-sean-connerys-007-was-a-rapist/

  • link to original post



    Bond needs to be a straight white male (the character).

    Sadly at the probability (by people who do betting odds on such things) is that the next actor will almost certainly be at least not one of those things (the sexuality of the actor does not matter, as long as the character's is correct, but the other two variables can't be acted away).

    Sadly even a certain former Bond actor is now saying there should be a female James Bond which is just madness. This is a fringe view (but it gains traction when former "James Bonds" say it). However, the other variables are less fringe. And, there is a massive push to change the race, in fact the current odds are the next Bond will likely be, at the least, not white (last I checked). (And in the odds "any female" is actually higher than you would think, certainly higher than I would think, I think nearing 10 1).

    And, my views on purity to the books. Bond, being straight, white, and male are all central to the character, you remove these components (or any of them), its no longer James Bond. There are plenty of spy books out there with diverse characters, Bond needs to be the same. Race is the one that can maybe change, but even that is questionable, but I could see it working in some circumstances, but I have to admit I would be skeptical.

    As for Bond being a rapist, he is (and that is kind of the point, not to make rape look good, but to show his dark side). In the books, he is an alcoholic, drug using (this does transfer into the movies), chain smoking (not so much in the modern movies), racist (you could even say imperialist, again does not transfer into the movies so much), and womanizer (from consensual, to adulterer, to to abusive, to manipulative, to rapist, in various encounters). Bond is supposed to be a dark character that you are half-hating. The movies (with some exceptions, again while I like Dalton and Craig, as they are both pretty close), turn this around and make him heroic and noble, but this was not the intent of the character (and people get shocked at the movies that more accurately portray him). This is based on the Fleming books, I have not read any non-Fleming books. In any case, the point of this, is to defend my claim that he needs to be a straight white male, because losing any attribute would take away key aspects of his character, to the point where it would not even be a Bond movie anymore (its not that I think straight white males are better, because I would agree they often are not, and are overrepresented, but in this case its about character attributes).

    “I didn't intend for Bond to be likable. He's a blunt instrument in the hands of the government. He's got vices and few perceptible virtues.” -Ian Fleming

    • Jump to: