|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 430 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
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. |
|
| Aug-19-17 | | Beholder: <SwitchingQuylthulg> Yes, that's literally the name of the bet, "Head-to-head score". I think the Bookie messed this one up. |
|
Aug-20-17
 | | FSR: <Beholder> I agree that that was a very confusing name. I too assumed at first that the bet concerned the outcome of the blitz games that Kasparov and Nakamura played against one another, not their total scores in the blitz section of the tournament. Luckily I read the details of the bet before placing my wager. |
|
Aug-20-17
| | Annie K.: Head-to-head score means that only two specified players' results are being compared to each other. It does not mean 'mini-match'. If I had meant their games against each other, I would have called the bet 'Mini-match Result'. The term 'head-to-head' may be somewhat ambiguous, but it is definitely not a clear-cut, to-be-taken-for-granted, synonym for mini-match as Switch implied. In any case, the provided bet description explained the terms clearly, and reading those description boxes has never been optional. |
|
| Aug-21-17 | | Beholder: <Annie K.: Head-to-head score means that only two specified players' results are being compared to each other. It does not mean 'mini-match'.> That's your own private definition that is not shared by anyone else. It definitely IS a synonym for mini-match.
Merriam-Webster:
<Head–to–head
adverb or adjective
: in a direct confrontation or encounter usually between individuals> Thus, a <Head-to-head score> is a score resulting from such direct confrontation, i.e. the result of a mini-match. You made a mistake, now you compound it by refusing to admit it. |
|
| Aug-21-17 | | sydbarrett: Always read the details. The actual description of the bet (not the header) provided the details, and was clear and correct. Hey, that's my opinion. |
|
| Aug-21-17 | | Beholder: <sydbarrett: Always read the details. The actual description of the bet (not the header) provided the details, and was clear and correct. Hey, that's my opinion.> Very well, let's say for the sake of argument that I share your opinion. This presents a dilemma: are we to assume that the name (header) of the bet takes precedence over its description, or the description takes precedence over name, in case of conflicting and/or mutually exclusive information? |
|
| Aug-21-17 | | sydbarrett: Personally I wasn't 100% sure what the header meant, so I read the description. I'd redo the bet if possible, but we don't have a time machine. I was like, "what do you mean head-to-head"... then I read the description and it said "higher overall score" and I went, "ohhhh" |
|
Aug-21-17
 | | OhioChessFan: <The term 'head-to-head' may be somewhat ambiguous, but it is definitely not a clear-cut, to-be-taken-for-granted, synonym for mini-match as Switch implied. > "head-to-head" is not ambiguous, and it is definitely a synonym for mini-match. I got 1000 chessbucks you can't find one person on the site to agree with you. What to do now is the question, and your decision has to be respected as final. Regardless, it's a shame for some people who lost on it, but such things are bound to happen in a contest with so many bets. The pay for the bookie isn't quite enough to be cover the cost of the aspirin needed. |
|
| Aug-22-17 | | Beholder: <sydbarrett> You miss the point: when the information contained in the header contradicts the information contained in the description, like it did in this case, how exactly are we to know which of the two is correct? You say you trusted the description over the header, but fail to explain how or why you arrived at that decision. Surely you understand it could have just as easily been the other way around: the description could have been faulty (for example, being copied-and-pasted from another bet) and the header correct. There is no way to know, from the information provided. <OhioChessFan> My point exactly. |
|
Aug-23-17
 | | Sneaky: I didn't have a horse in that race, but I don't really see the problem. While the title might have been vaguely named, I think the description eliminated all of the ambiguity. Besides, don't pretend you knew for certain what the outcome was going to be. We all make our picks and takes our chances. In the end, if your ticket is graded a winner, you get paid... even if you DON'T agree with the wording! |
|
| Aug-24-17 | | Beholder: <Sneaky: I didn't have a horse in that race,> Neither did I.
<While the title might have been vaguely named,> It wasn't.
<I think the description eliminated all of the ambiguity.> Au contraire, it CREATED the ambiguity, by directly contradicting the information contained in the name of the bet, which wasn't ambiguous in any way by itself. Maybe you should read my reply to <sydbarrett>, because you're just reiterating his point which was already refuted. <Besides, don't pretend you knew for certain what the outcome was going to be.> Not sure why you think I'm pretending anything? |
|
Aug-24-17
| | Sneaky: I don't see any way that you could read the title AND the description (like the rules say you should do) and come away from it thinking that it could mean two different things. The phrase "higher overall score in the Blitz section only" is pretty specific. But even if there were a few people genuinely confused over the meaning of the bet, thinking it could mean one of two things, why then did they bet on it? <Not sure why you think I'm pretending anything?> My comment wasn't aimed at you (or anybody specific) but I'm just saying, if there are players who interpreted the bet contrary to the ruling and lost chessbucks, there surely are also people among us who interpreted the bet wrongly and won chessbucks. I don't see those people lobbying to have their bets reversed. It seems the losers suddenly become very pedantic while the winners say "c'est la vie." |
|
| Aug-26-17 | | wordfunph: how 'bout a betting activity on Mayweather - McGregor fight? |
|
| Aug-26-17 | | wordfunph: hmmmm...
McGregor in 1-4 rounds
McGregor in 5-8 rounds
McGregor in 9-12 rounds
Mayweather in 1-4 rounds
Mayweather in 5-8 rounds
Mayweather in 9-12 rounds
draw
bookie, let's get ready to rumble! |
|
| Aug-27-17 | | Beholder: The Bookie continues to impress.
<The top 10 players are: Carlsen, So, Caruana, Kramnik, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Nakamura, Aronian, Grischuk, Anand.> Okay, maybe Aronian is so great he's worth twice any other top player, at least according to the bookie. But who's the 10th player then? |
|
| Aug-27-17 | | Beholder: I'm already bracing myself for something like... <The term 'Aronian' may be somewhat ambiguous, but it is definitely not a clear-cut, to-be-taken-for-granted, synonym for Aronian as Beholder implied.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 430 OF 501 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
