<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 2) Are you saying that VIP, or any of the books they manage or own, has never misrepresented their policy on how they deal with winners?
2) No. I do not know of a time when they denied or missrepresented their risk control methods. (and by this time I'm confidant that you have searched the archives and you don't know of a single case either hence the now famous "lie by omission" fall back )
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3) Do you, as the operator of a sportsbook watchdog site, condone the policy of limiting/booting winners?
3) I have no problem with books that have reasonable risk controls. I wish they did not need them and I'm not a fan of them. But I'm also not a fan in having 12 players suck out all the value that 11,000 players could enjoy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sam, how can you say I didn't awnser your questions? And this from a guy who said I did not ask for proof of the "lie" because I said "Show me the lie"....geez Sam I think I'll just go find a game of 3-card Monty...it will feel the same as continueing this debate.
2) No. I do not know of a time when they denied or missrepresented their risk control methods. (and by this time I'm confidant that you have searched the archives and you don't know of a single case either hence the now famous "lie by omission" fall back )
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 3) Do you, as the operator of a sportsbook watchdog site, condone the policy of limiting/booting winners?
3) I have no problem with books that have reasonable risk controls. I wish they did not need them and I'm not a fan of them. But I'm also not a fan in having 12 players suck out all the value that 11,000 players could enjoy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sam, how can you say I didn't awnser your questions? And this from a guy who said I did not ask for proof of the "lie" because I said "Show me the lie"....geez Sam I think I'll just go find a game of 3-card Monty...it will feel the same as continueing this debate.
BS:
Keep up the semantics routine. It helps show everyone to what lengths you will go to protect one of your advertisers.
I asked you an easy question that only requires a simple yes or no answer, not some nonsense about "risk control methods".
Dicky:
Last time I checked this was a PUBLIC forum. There's no need to contact Alistair privately, and there's certainly no reason for Alistair to duck my direct question if he has any desire to be open and honest about VIP's policy regarding winners.
Nobody has asked for your help here. Now be a good boy and mind your own business.
Keep up the semantics routine. It helps show everyone to what lengths you will go to protect one of your advertisers.
I asked you an easy question that only requires a simple yes or no answer, not some nonsense about "risk control methods".
Dicky:
Last time I checked this was a PUBLIC forum. There's no need to contact Alistair privately, and there's certainly no reason for Alistair to duck my direct question if he has any desire to be open and honest about VIP's policy regarding winners.
Nobody has asked for your help here. Now be a good boy and mind your own business.
Sam
Sorry just trying to help you not look any dumber then you already do
"Last time I checked this was a PUBLIC forum. There's no need to contact Alistair privately"
Is that your way of saying I am too much of a pussy to talk man to man with a guy whos company I called deceiving liars?
Once again Sam your the one making the allegations, now prove it. Your asking VIP to confirm or deny a lie that does'nt exsist, get real buddy.
Sorry just trying to help you not look any dumber then you already do
"Last time I checked this was a PUBLIC forum. There's no need to contact Alistair privately"
Is that your way of saying I am too much of a pussy to talk man to man with a guy whos company I called deceiving liars?
Once again Sam your the one making the allegations, now prove it. Your asking VIP to confirm or deny a lie that does'nt exsist, get real buddy.
Dicky:
It's my way of saying that this is a public forum, and this issue is being discussed publicly. There is no reason to take it private, as so many books attempt to do when they think it will help them avoid embarrassing issues.
Thanks for all your help though. If you're so concerned about proof, and you have nothing better to do than to offer unsolicited advice, then I suggest you spend some time proving the insinuation/allegation you made earlier.
It's my way of saying that this is a public forum, and this issue is being discussed publicly. There is no reason to take it private, as so many books attempt to do when they think it will help them avoid embarrassing issues.
Thanks for all your help though. If you're so concerned about proof, and you have nothing better to do than to offer unsolicited advice, then I suggest you spend some time proving the insinuation/allegation you made earlier.
Sam,
For your sake, I hope I'm the only one seeing your silly continuation of this. I said "No" to your 2nd question. I'm assuming that was clear
As for # 3 I said "I have no problem with books that have reasonable risk controls." That's a "yes" Sam as long as it's reasonable.
Are you really saying you could not figure out from my explanations where I stood? Just morbid curiosity at this point, but what part of my answers threw you off
For your sake, I hope I'm the only one seeing your silly continuation of this. I said "No" to your 2nd question. I'm assuming that was clear
As for # 3 I said "I have no problem with books that have reasonable risk controls." That's a "yes" Sam as long as it's reasonable.
Are you really saying you could not figure out from my explanations where I stood? Just morbid curiosity at this point, but what part of my answers threw you off
BS:
You want to keep playing dumb, that's fine with me, but I hope I'm not the only one thinks it's demeaning and reduces your credibility.
Here's the post I made to you after you dodged my specific question and started talking about "reasonable risk controls".
Do you disagree with the dictionary definitions I so graciously provided for you?
Are you now saying that misrepresentations, lies of omission, and half-truths are not really forms of deception?
Is the only way to determine if someone is lying to catch them stating a direct falsehood?
Is it acceptable for books and/or sportsbook review sites to misrepresent a books true policies?
Please enlighten us as to your thinking in these matters.
"Risk control methods"....now where did that phrase come from? I don't remember asking you about "risk control methods".
I asked you if VIP, or any of the books they manage or own, has ever misrepresented their policy on how they deal with winners.
Just to prevent any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that your answer to that specific question is "No"?
While you're at it, please answer the other questions in this post instead of repeatedly engaging in deflection. I think it's important and beneficial for readers here to understand the thinking and logic behind a sportsbook review site operator's comments.
You want to keep playing dumb, that's fine with me, but I hope I'm not the only one thinks it's demeaning and reduces your credibility.
Here's the post I made to you after you dodged my specific question and started talking about "reasonable risk controls".
Do you disagree with the dictionary definitions I so graciously provided for you?
Are you now saying that misrepresentations, lies of omission, and half-truths are not really forms of deception?
Is the only way to determine if someone is lying to catch them stating a direct falsehood?
Is it acceptable for books and/or sportsbook review sites to misrepresent a books true policies?
Please enlighten us as to your thinking in these matters.
"Risk control methods"....now where did that phrase come from? I don't remember asking you about "risk control methods".
I asked you if VIP, or any of the books they manage or own, has ever misrepresented their policy on how they deal with winners.
Just to prevent any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that your answer to that specific question is "No"?
While you're at it, please answer the other questions in this post instead of repeatedly engaging in deflection. I think it's important and beneficial for readers here to understand the thinking and logic behind a sportsbook review site operator's comments.
This thread is a classic.
A battle of the minds
To be honest to change to another book mentioned
I saw someone state Canbet is a top notch Book.
Well for a Fact they cut your limits.
If you win even more they will cut your limits to almost nothing.
YES THEY PAY
For some they would be good
for others they suck
A battle of the minds
To be honest to change to another book mentioned
I saw someone state Canbet is a top notch Book.
Well for a Fact they cut your limits.
If you win even more they will cut your limits to almost nothing.
YES THEY PAY
For some they would be good
for others they suck
Sam you have to feel like the Iraqi army by now.
I feel a little bad taking it to you, but all I wanted was for you prove of VIP's lie which you claimed early on.
Sam I think you have read "The Art of War" one too many times. All your silly questions which I answered over and over were started because you refused to answer what lie VIP told.
Many, many posts later we all learned that there was indeed no lie afterall. I appreciate you coming clean on that one.
I think the thread is over Sam at least for me it is. Enjoy, and until next time...
Sam I think you have read "The Art of War" one too many times. All your silly questions which I answered over and over were started because you refused to answer what lie VIP told.
Many, many posts later we all learned that there was indeed no lie afterall. I appreciate you coming clean on that one.
I think the thread is over Sam at least for me it is. Enjoy, and until next time...
BS:
I feel a lot like how others must have felt trying to get a straight answer from Bill Clinton. You're looking more like the Iraqi Information Minister with each post.
It's a shame, but all we have learned from this thread is the depths you will go to to protect one of your advertisers. I ask you for a simple yes or no answer to a very pertinent question and you come back with some "risk control methods" nonsense. I never asked you if VIP misrepresented their "risk control methods", did I? You say that you've answered "over and over", but it's hard to answer a question you were never asked.
You keep ducking, dodging, spinning, and playing dumb instead of clearly, simply, and concisely answering relevant questions.
You must be getting dizzy from all that evasion.
Since you've already admitted to glossing over items in this thread, here's the questions for you again (even though it now appears you're positioning yourself to slither from this thread without ever answering them).
We'll start with the one you have painfully avoided answering.
1) Has VIP, or any of the books they manage or own, ever misrepresented their policy on how they deal with winners?
Just to prevent any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that your answer to that specific question is "No"?
Here's the others you keep ducking.
2) Do you disagree with the dictionary definitions I so graciously provided for you?
3) Are you now saying that misrepresentations, lies of omission, and half-truths are not really forms of deception?
4) Is the only way to determine if someone is lying to catch them stating a direct falsehood?
5) Is it acceptable for books and/or sportsbook review sites to misrepresent a book's true policies?
Something is not right here. Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? I would think a sportsbook review/watchdog site operator would jump at the chance to explain himself and his thought process....unless he had something to hide.
I feel a lot like how others must have felt trying to get a straight answer from Bill Clinton. You're looking more like the Iraqi Information Minister with each post.
It's a shame, but all we have learned from this thread is the depths you will go to to protect one of your advertisers. I ask you for a simple yes or no answer to a very pertinent question and you come back with some "risk control methods" nonsense. I never asked you if VIP misrepresented their "risk control methods", did I? You say that you've answered "over and over", but it's hard to answer a question you were never asked.
You keep ducking, dodging, spinning, and playing dumb instead of clearly, simply, and concisely answering relevant questions.
You must be getting dizzy from all that evasion.
Since you've already admitted to glossing over items in this thread, here's the questions for you again (even though it now appears you're positioning yourself to slither from this thread without ever answering them).
We'll start with the one you have painfully avoided answering.
1) Has VIP, or any of the books they manage or own, ever misrepresented their policy on how they deal with winners?
Just to prevent any possible misunderstanding, are you saying that your answer to that specific question is "No"?
Here's the others you keep ducking.
2) Do you disagree with the dictionary definitions I so graciously provided for you?
3) Are you now saying that misrepresentations, lies of omission, and half-truths are not really forms of deception?
4) Is the only way to determine if someone is lying to catch them stating a direct falsehood?
5) Is it acceptable for books and/or sportsbook review sites to misrepresent a book's true policies?
Something is not right here. Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? I would think a sportsbook review/watchdog site operator would jump at the chance to explain himself and his thought process....unless he had something to hide.
