• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Board Bets

If you reference goal differential as the NHL numbers and immediately afterwards offer a bet based on goal differential, that's what you're betting on.
 
hockeylover said:
A couple weeks ago when I updated this thread and used the official goal differential in the standings and Sensible freaked out, I was almost SURE that he had been using those exact same totals but I was too lazy to go back and prove it. I'm not surprised at all though.
Click to expand...

Yet another part of this that is rich. He thought the bet was about goal scoring totals and not goal differential until just recently. Yet he's continuously tried to play it like we've been tracking this bet all season in a certain method and just now I'm ****ing about with a well established machinery at work.
 
It's stupid. GF by winning a shootout is meaningless.

No one gets the goal. No goalie or opposing team has a GA. It's empty. It's tracked for tie-break purposes.

It literally has no significance when comparing two teams abilities.
 
hockeylover said:
If you reference goal differential as the NHL numbers and immediately afterwards offer a bet based on goal differential, that's what you're betting on.
Click to expand...

At which point both Zeke and Player noted that you were wrong and I was right in how I calculated it. And for the record, that makes three of the 4 members of the actual bet agreeing with me and a couple of people who hate my guts disagreeing... I know which opinion is less biased and has any meaning in the situation at hand.

ME said nothing until the bet was tied based on real goal differential...he had plenty of opportunity to say something, but choose to start disputing then...

In fairness, I can see how my previous post implied acceptance of the standing goal differential column, just like his lack of disputing the multiple previous times the proper way of calculating this was discussed implies acceptance of my terms.

That is why I've offered a fair settlement.
 
Last edited:
corksens said:
It's stupid. GF by winning a shootout is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Except to the NHL...and at the time of the bet, to Sensible.

No one gets the goal. No goalie or opposing team has a GA. It's empty. It's tracked for tie-break purposes.
Click to expand...

Which means that the NHL finds it significant enough that if GP (which is always tied), Wins (which is frequently tied), and head to head (which is semi frequently tied)...it determines playoff seedings, up to and including home ice, as well as possibly even missing the playoffs. The NHL seems to take it plenty seriously.

It literally has no significance when comparing two teams abilities.
Click to expand...

But it sure did to Sensible at the time of the bet.

you need to **** off with this after your bitch fest when we were trying to outline terms for a Karlsson bet. I was trying to enshrine "the nature of the bet" into the terms of a Karlsson wager with you. But at the time, you were entirely convinced that if we had a bet on Karlsson scoring 65 points or less, and Karlsson scored 66, that made me wrong and I needed to pay up. Where was your interest in "the nature of a bet" then?

Had Sensible done what I was attempting to do with you, and clarified the terms of the bet at the time of the offer, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. He offered clear terms, I accepted those clear terms and expect him to honour them. You're being a hypocrite of the highest order here though after your bitching and moaning in our previous attempted wager.
 
Honestly, Mindz, if at this point you lose the bet you should tell him to go pound sand. Because he's looking for any and every out available to him in order to welch with plausible deniability being his crutch.
 
SENSible said:
At which point both Zeke and Player noted that you were wrong and I was right in how I calculated it.

ME said nothing until the bet was tied based on real goal differential...
Click to expand...

ME said very little about the bet at all until you posted your most recent numbers.

So....if you're right in the way that you calculate it. Where was that on the day that you placed the bet?
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Honestly, Mindz, if at this point you lose the bet you should tell him to go pound sand. Because he's looking for any and every out available to him in order to welch with plausible deniability being his crutch.
Click to expand...

I will honour the original terms of the bet. If I lose under the original terms of the bet, I owe him 100 bones.
 
you need to **** off with this after your bitch fest when we were trying to outline terms for a Karlsson bet. I was trying to enshrine "the nature of the bet" into the terms of a Karlsson wager with you. But at the time, you were entirely convinced that if we had a bet on Karlsson scoring 65 points or less, and Karlsson scored 66, that made me wrong and I needed to pay up. Where was your interest in "the nature of a bet" then?
Click to expand...
It seems like you just love to build in buffers to your bets.

Points are points. Pretty simple.

Goals for and goals against = goal differential. Simple again.
 
corksens said:
It seems like you just love to build in buffers to your bets.
Click to expand...

Well, as you put it, to protect the nature of the bet. But that needs to be included in the terms of a bet. If you and I had made our Karlsson wager, and he scored 66 points this season, despite my being incredibly accurate in my assessment of where he was as a player, I would have lost that bet. So I wanted a fairly reasonable buffer. It appears that I was pretty ****ing wrong about that though and would have lost regardless had you sacked up and trusted in your god.

Points are points. Pretty simple

Goals for and goals against = goal differential. Simple again.
Click to expand...

Problem with this logic again is that you're missing something. Goal differential is only officially tracked by the NHL in one place, and that's in there standings. Sensible used that very number within minutes of offering the bet. It has to be then concluded that the standings page version of goal differential, flawed or not, is the acceptable method of tracking the bet. He wasn't interested in the alternative method of tracking goal differential at the time, because if he was, he would have posted that the Leafs had the Sens by 5 goals last season.

So yes, if I ignore the official definition of goal differential, and the fact that the person offering the bet both clearly understood and regularly used the official definition of goal differential, then your logic makes sense here. But I didn't argue his use of the numbers, and didn't care. I accepted them at the time, knowing that the Leafs have suffered in the shootout in recent history.
 
MindzEye said:
Yet another part of this that is rich. He thought the bet was about goal scoring totals and not goal differential until just recently. Yet he's continuously tried to play it like we've been tracking this bet all season in a certain method and just now I'm ****ing about with a well established machinery at work.
Click to expand...

I've posted the stats on multiple occasions.

The fact that I didn't even remember that it was about goal differential to start shows I wasn't tying anything nefarious and simply applied the real definition...you know goals for minus goals against.

Give it up. The solution I've offered is the very definition of fair. Neither of us has to pay unless we lose it according to the terms we both thought we'd be obligated to do so.
 
corksens said:
Others corrected him immediately. You didn't. Until now.
Click to expand...

Other people NOT INVOLVED IN THE BET ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT ME. They were shown how they were wrong and my definition was accepted by Zeke and Player, the other two people in the bet.
 
SENSible said:
I've posted the stats on multiple occasions.

The fact that I didn't even remember that it was about goal differential to start shows I wasn't tying anything nefarious and simply applied the real definition...you know goals for minus goals against.

Give it up. The solution I've offered is the very definition of fair. Neither of us has to pay unless we lose it according to the terms we both thought we'd be obligated to do so.
Click to expand...

At the time of the wager, you were clearly aware of the terms.
 
corksens said:
Sure. When the numbers were no longer in your favour.
Click to expand...

They weren't in my favour when I made the bet either.

Whether I noticed this now, a month ago, or next month I would have expected the same. I would have expected that the original terms of the bet were honoured. I've gambled with people on this board for years and never had a problem until someone tried to change the original terms of the wager, this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top