< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 430 OF 430 ·
|Aug-03-17|| ||Marmot PFL: Yeah right. Well i won't waste any more time on this bullcrap game.|
|Aug-05-17|| ||sydbarrett: see you next leg. thanks for playing =)|
|Aug-05-17|| ||FSR: Who is this man (woman?) with no vowels who's leaped into second place?|
|Aug-05-17|| ||Annie K.: Dnt knw, bt vwls rnt ncssr... ;p|
|Aug-06-17|| ||Dr Winston OBoogie: <FSR: Who is this man (woman?) with no vowels who's leaped into second place?>|
<Annie K.: Dnt knw, bt vwls rnt ncssr... ;p>
<<FSR>>. Never trust a man with no vowels in his name ;)
|Aug-09-17|| ||chessgames.com: <john barelycorn> There may have been a misunderstanding here. |
When I go into your account I see a fairly large net worth but 0 funds. That means that you are being credited for your tickets, both the ones that are live (credited at face value) or tickets that have won (worth the full winning amount.)
However, "net worth" is not something you can wager with. I see you have at least one winning ticket: if you cashed that in, then your net worth would stay the same, but your "funds" would go up enabling you to make the bets you want.
I hope this clarifies the problem and I am understanding the problem correctly.
|Aug-09-17|| ||Mr. President: We want <more net from the gross> and a bookie taxation policy which strengthens the willingness to perform.|
|Aug-09-17|| ||john barleycorn: <chessgames.com: <john barelycorn> There may have been a misunderstanding here. >|
How did it happen that my 2 bets on round 6 in Sinquefield were confirmed but do not show up and consequently no there is no payout?
|Aug-10-17|| ||chessgames.com: <How did it happen that my 2 bets on round 6 in Sinquefield were confirmed but do not show up and consequently no there is no payout?>|
I misunderstood your issue. You are saying you placed two bets, but then later the tickets are gone and the money is too?
Could it possibly be that you actually placed losing bets and swept them away with the "discard losing ticket" feature? Are you sure you bet on who you thought you did? I don't think for a second you'd lie about this game but from my point of view, the notion that you're simply mistaken seems to make the most sense.
Here's the issue: I have the logfile that shows what bets you made, which presumably should be complete. I look you up and see several 200 cb bets in a row, all on losers. But now you're saying there were two additional bets, that for some reason where not placed into the logfile, which actually won.
Please don't take this as an accusation or a way to brush you off — it's just a logical analysis:
If there was some bug that made winning tickets vanish, how could it possible know to not write the winning tickets to the logfile way back on August 5th, before the game was even played? The "bug" would have to contain an oracle to tell it which bets to suppress, on April 5th, for the games played on April 6th. In other words, that's impossible.
So that leaves only a few possibilities: (1) you're simply mistaken (2) some bets vanish at random and in your case it just coincidentally happened to be the bets that were winners (3) you have more than one account and accidentally placed the winning bets while you were signed into the other account. (Which is against the rules but we let it slide if it's not being done intentionally.)
I know that the system has some quirks and downright bugs, SQ and I explored several of them during his stints as bookie, but the idea of winning tickets vanishing without compensation has never come up in all these years. So I'm really thinking one of the three possibilities above explain it, especially 1 or 3; i.e., there's really no bug.
|Aug-11-17|| ||john barleycorn: Thanks for the comment.
ad 1. I placed bets on Aronian (against So 200cb) and on Nakumura (against Carlsen 200cb) in round 6 of the Sinquefield Cup a few hours before the games started. both bets were confirmed. When trying to place a 3rd bet on Karjakin I got the message about insufficient funds. That was the reason for my first post on the chessgames.com page. After Aronian won and Nakamura drew I checked about the payout. There was no payout which was the reason for my second post on chessgames.com.
ad 2. the bet on Aronian was a winner, the bet on Nakamura was a loser by the results of the games.
ad 3. I have only this account on CG
|Aug-11-17|| ||chessgames.com: <barleycorn> Thanks for the replies. I'm still confounded, particularly because when I look at the logfile the losing bets I referred to were round 4 bets — I don't see ANY bets for round 6, winning nor losing. What I see is that you haven't been playing lately (which is why I suggested that perhaps you had another account that accidentally played.)|
I see plenty of other bets by other people around that time so it's not that the logging was temporarily broken, so that's not it.
The "you must be mistaken" theory seems to be blown out of the water as you're very clear about who you bet on and when you did it, and even recall details about the system's responses to your bets.
I'm going to have to meditate on this. I'm sorry I don't have an answer.
|Aug-11-17|| ||john barleycorn: <chessgames.com: ... — I don't see ANY bets for round 6, winning nor losing. ...>|
There are no more bets and that is why I contacted you.
Again, a few hours before round 6 started I placed 2 bets which were confirmed and the 3rd bet was rejected due to lacking money.
Later bets were rejected right away due to insufficient funds until you told me to cash in my round 4 ticket. After that I did not place any bets.
However, it is already strange that my funds showed exactly zero since I usually bet "round" amounts (50, 100, 200) and my networth was not a round amount before if I am not terrible mistaken.
|Aug-11-17|| ||FSR: The two new bets both close on August 14 and pay out on August 12? Weird.|
|Aug-11-17|| ||Annie K.: I'm working on time travel as a side project. Shh. ;p|
|Aug-12-17|| ||WannaBe: <Annie K.> Please let me know if LA Dodgers wins World Series or not in 2017.|
Much appreciated it.
|Aug-12-17|| ||sydbarrett: let's go yankees|
|Aug-13-17|| ||Chessgames Bookie: <WannaBe> Uh... I'm afraid disclosing that might change the course of history, and we'd all go up in a puff of smoke or something. ;s|
<OK, bettors and worse, listen up! Pay Day* is coming; we'll have it on the 16th.<<<<>>>>>
* For any new Bookie players, that means that if you have placed at least one bet before the 16th, you will get an additional 1000 chessbucks added to your account... so if you haven't placed any bets yet, be sure to place one before then!
For those who for some reason want to wait for the last minute to do so, I have set up Saint Louis Blitz - Kasparov vs Nakamura : Head-to-head score that will still be open at the time. :)
Please note that since pairings for rapid events are usually not available long enough in advance, individual round bets are unlikely to be offered: the bets available now will probably be the only coverage of the Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz tournament, and after this event we will go on a hiatus until the beginning of the World Cup Knockout in early September. Plan your strategies accordingly.
|Aug-15-17|| ||ycsidney: Looks like if you have 0 cb you would not be listed in the standing list!|
|Aug-15-17|| ||Annie K.: Yes, it has always been this way. The Pay Day script shouldn't miss you though.|
|Aug-15-17|| ||ycsidney: Thanks!|
|Aug-16-17|| ||juan31: Chessgames Bookie : Pay day ??|
|Aug-16-17|| ||juan31: Gracias Chessgames Bookie|
|Aug-17-17|| ||centralfiles: Kasparov-Nakamura blitz bet should have been closed before start of rapid.
No one thinks Kasp. can win it now.|
|Aug-19-17|| ||Beholder: Saint Louis Blitz - Kasparov vs Nakamura : Head-to-head score |
<Which will get the higher overall score in the *Blitz section only* of the tournament?>
Nakamura vs Kasparov, 2017
Kasparov vs Nakamura, 2017
Kasparov - Nakamura 1.5-0.5
Yet the Bookie pays up Naka bettors.
Do I miss something?
|Aug-19-17|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <Beholder> Nakamura did have the higher overall score in the blitz section, 10.5 to 9.0, so the market was settled correctly; that Kasparov had the better head-to-head score didn't matter, though it's certainly easy to see why the market's name might make you think otherwise.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 430 OF 430 ·