Lou wants more

Shannon.spronk said:
While typically I would agree with all of this there is one problem with your justifications. You are trying to rationalize the actions of a pure narcissist. I do not necessarily mean that in a bad way, but it is what it is.

Furthermore I personally feel that if Lou had posted up saying I accept your offer to double the bet that John would have accepted. IMHO John feels like this is partly a move by Lou to take over some control of this match. Pretty good timing for it as well.
Click to expand...

So John tries to up the bet 200%, and Lou tries to up the bet 25%, but Lou is the one with a move/attempting to high roll? I don't see how anyone could see it that way. I mean it's possible they were both moves, but one of them is very questionable at best, and one of them is much more obvious, blatant and undeniable.

Personally I don't think John ever intended to put more than 10k actual money in play with Lou no matter how Lou responded (and he was probably reallllly hoping the first 10k offer didn't get accepted either for that matter). The 20k offer was an attempt to high roll and get in Lou's head, nothing more. If John really wanted to bet 20k, when Lou said he would do 25k John would have said no thanks to the additional, but I'll take the 20k of it that I was asking for. But John never really actually wanted that action to begin with. His offer had a totally different purpose, but it back fired on him.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
So John tries to up the bet 200%, and Lou tries to up the bet 25%, but Lou is the one with a move/attempting to high roll? I don't see how anyone could see it that way. I mean it's possible they were both moves, but one of them is very questionable at best, and one of them is much more obvious, blatant and undeniable.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that the amount by any means was Lou trying to make a move. I was more or less just trying to say that rather than Lou saying I accept the double Lou decided he wanted to be the power player by determining the amount and going another 50% over the top of JB. Just calling it the way that I see it. By Lou doing this now it just felt to me like he was trying to let JB know that this isn't just JB dictating the terms of this match. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. Doesn't really make much difference either way.

Also as far as moves go JB has tried nearly every move in the book when it comes to this match and they are all obvious. I am not taking sides at all. I was not trying to call Lou out on the move.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
Indeed.
Drop calling people nuthuggers or we can certainly ban people, including people that went off previously that should have been banned permanently already.

Namely, you.
Click to expand...

Yea maybe my ban could've been permanenty but if you remember I was provoked into it by name calling against me which you did nothing about.
Way to play the favoritism card again.

And why would you even bring up that I should've been banned permanently? How unprofessional I thought that was private & you keep what is said between the 2 people it was discussed with.
Just asking because it has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I did nothing wrong except point out name calling by another member. So you decide to warn me again
 
Last edited:
I think Jerry or Mike needs to chime in here. I was banned for 3 days as well - and Jerry and Mike reversed it. The rules are certainly not applied equally across the board and personal feelings should not enter into forum moderation but but they certainly appear to here.

Mr. Wilson has said publicly that he doesn't care for John and on this forum but he is a moderator and is supposed to be neutral - not engaging and arguing with the members, especially paying members. John donated a load of cases for the Gold giveaway as well - who has done more here lately?

You don't have to agree with JB but why people are allowed to publicly attack him and get away with it is beyond me. What is worse is that people are allowed to do it anonymously.

John promotes the game, he is in the pool business and he has never said a bad word about anyone that hadn't attacked him, his business or his family first.

I think the games need to stop.

Gerry

Roadking said:
Yea maybe my ban could've been permanenty but if you remember I was provoked into it by name calling against me which you did nothing about.
Way to play the favoritism card again.

And why would you even bring up that I should've been banned permanently? How unprofessional I thought that was private & you keep what is said between the 2 people it was discussed with.
Just asking because it has nothing to do with anything in this thread. I did nothing wrong except point out name calling by another member. So you decide to warn me again
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gerry Williams said:
I think Jerry or Mike needs to chime in here. I was banned for 3 days as well - and Jerry and Mike reversed it. The rules are certainly not applied equally across the board and personal feelings should not enter into forum moderation but but they certainly appear to here.

Mr. Wilson has said publicly that he doesn't care for John and on this forum but he is a moderator and is supposed to be neutral - not engaging and arguing with the members, especially paying members. John donated a load of cases for the Gold giveaway as well - who has done more here lately?

You don't have to agree with JB but why people are allowed to publicly attack him and get away with it is beyond me. What is worse is that people are allowed to do it anonymously.

John promotes the game, he is in the pool business and he has never said a bad word about anyone that hadn't attacked him, his business or his family first.

I think the games need to stop.

Gerry
Click to expand...

Don't be confused with The self promotion JB bandwagon ,, this site has done far more for him than the other way around
JB antics are well known . Saying he never insults anyone unless the other person starts it is laughable ,, there's a reason why he's contending if not leading the race for the most banned .. and it's certainly not from his pleasent social demeanor

1
 
Amazingly enough, so very many people have apparently got themselves a copy of the AZB Moderator's handbook.:rolleyes:
I must have missed the chapter that said "I must be impartial" etc....
JB stirs the pot and is always the victim. I've made it clear that when he does this, there won't be any assistance to be found.

Gerry and roadking, you guys did your share of provocation and bickering too.
Like JB, are you two only the victims here? You need to try harder if this is what you wish to sell.
Gerry, you got banned for actions. You provoked someone and they responded, I felt you deserved to be banned as much as they did.
roadking, your comments are in a class of their own. You should not be here at all after what you said, yet here you are...continually calling me out it would seem.

Now, in the context of this thread, are you two working with the system and reporting the violations that you wish to insist are not being enforced equally, when you both are examples of my attempts to act in this way? ...Or is it easier ( more fun ) to just say that with out really reporting things?
 
Get em Wilson! :D

45byrMN.gif
 
I know what I said to get banned was way out of line, I'm not questioning that. And I did send you a PM apologizing for what I said before you even banned me. And i thank you for not making it permanent but I did no provoking in that matter, I was the one provoked and I over reacted. I'm not making excuses for it, just saying. I know I'm no saint I'm far from it but If you can find were I ever did any provoking I'd like to see it. (Name calling)
And believe me I know Mr. Barton causes a lot of his own problems, I never said he didn't. But theirs a lot of members that go out of they're way to antagonize him into it. It's like that's they're only purpose on here. But what ever your the boss & I'm sure you'll continue to go by the secretive AZB's moderators hand book.
I'm just think what's fair for one should be fair for all.
 
You can try to spin it either way you see fit but people see the posts.

I provoked noone - I replied to SJD after he attacked me and others several times over for months. As a matter of fact it was Jerry that banned SJD because of his reply to me - weird that he would not ban me at the same time isn't it. You stepped in and banned me because I was supporting John - we all know it so just admit it.

And I am not playing a victim - I probably should not have said what I did to SJD but there was no warning and it was said by several others with no ban - strange hey. People can see right through you - believe that.

And I don't report anyone but you know that already.

Some good info here.
http://www.proboards.com/free-forum-articles/forum-building-tips-moderating



Mr. Wilson said:
Amazingly enough, so very many people have apparently got themselves a copy of the AZB Moderator's handbook.:rolleyes:
I must have missed the chapter that said "I must be impartial" etc....
JB stirs the pot and is always the victim. I've made it clear that when he does this, there won't be any assistance to be found.

Gerry and roadking, you guys did your share of provocation and bickering too.
Like JB, are you two only the victims here? You need to try harder if this is what you wish to sell.
Gerry, you got banned for actions. You provoked someone and they responded, I felt you deserved to be banned as much as they did.
roadking, your comments are in a class of their own. You should not be here at all after what you said, yet here you are...continually calling me out it would seem.

Now, in the context of this thread, are you two working with the system and reporting the violations that you wish to insist are not being enforced equally, when you both are examples of my attempts to act in this way? ...Or is it easier ( more fun ) to just say that with out really reporting things?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gerry Williams said:
I think Jerry or Mike needs to chime in here. I was banned for 3 days as well - and Jerry and Mike reversed it. The rules are certainly not applied equally across the board and personal feelings should not enter into forum moderation but but they certainly appear to here.

Mr. Wilson has said publicly that he doesn't care for John and on this forum but he is a moderator and is supposed to be neutral - not engaging and arguing with the members, especially paying members. John donated a load of cases for the Gold giveaway as well - who has done more here lately?

You don't have to agree with JB but why people are allowed to publicly attack him and get away with it is beyond me. What is worse is that people are allowed to do it anonymously.

John promotes the game, he is in the pool business and he has never said a bad word about anyone that hadn't attacked him, his business or his family first.

I think the games need to stop.

Gerry
Click to expand...

Gerry,

You are correct in that the moderators seem to condone the ad hominem attacks, especially on JB.

The name calling and the needling is against the forum rules BUT IT IS NOT enforced consistently.

The anonymous posters get their jollies digging into well known posters, knowing that they for the most part the targets are not going to get down in the mud and wallow.

JoeyA
 
Last edited:
Gerry Williams said:
You can try to spin it either way you see fit but people see the posts.

I provoked noone - I replied to SJD after he attacked me and others several times over for months.
Click to expand...


Gerry Williams said:
unlike the pictures of you groping your daughter.
Click to expand...

Really?? I see this classy post differently I guess.
Classy, real classy.
 
Well nice spin but you really should show the entire thread as opposed to a single sentence. You might find that it does a better job of providing context.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=353666

Did you get a chance to check out the link I sent you? It is an excellent read.

Jerry and Mike are true professionals and I wish them and AZ all the best.

Mr. Wilson said:
Really?? I see this classy post differently I guess.
Classy, real classy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
It did? Well he apparently couldn't explain what he meant by it, can you? He might as well have said "the orange crow flies at midnight". If there was a point there, it sure wasn't clear, so go ahead and enlighten us.



Just thought I would quote this for you because you sure are going to want to come back and delete it later after he loses.

But win or lose, it doesn't change the fact that John tried to high roll Lou once, got called on it, tried to high roll him again, got called on it again, and then backed down the second time and won't even honor the second high roll bet that he himself pushed for and badgered Lou for and made such a big deal about. Now THAT alone says more than anything you have said in this thread combined. It speaks volumes about how confident (unconfident) he really is, about his true intention for trying to raise the bet (an attempt to high roll Lou and get in his head without any desire to actually play for that amount), and arguably about his character.
Click to expand...

Your words "Fourth, as my post made abundantly clear, if you are trying to up the bet because you think you will win and you want to win more money, you could care less when the opponent agrees to it. You are just glad that they did because it means more money in your pocket. Even if it was two seconds before the coin toss, you would be like "whew, that was close, "
Yet you keep harping that John hasn't excepted Lou's raise yet, Why, afterall he has until 2 seconds before the coin flip to do so. John is very busy for the next few days. The final bet will be decided before the coin flip, not on here right now as you want it to be.
Since you are the expert on gambling though let me ask u a question. John and Lou were at Derby City, John had a pocket full of money, his nose wide open wanting to play, but Lou ran home so fast the door couldn't hit him in the ass. So if Lou is this big favorite in the game, has a 10,000 dollar future bet locked in, WHY DIDN'T HE TORTURE JOHN AT DERBY CITY? Lou had the perfect set up as the heavy favorite but declined. Why didn't he play then?
 
I think he didn't play then because this has been so much more fun. It obviously has bothered JB much more than it has bothered Lou.
 
cookie man said:
Your words "Fourth, as my post made abundantly clear, if you are trying to up the bet because you think you will win and you want to win more money, you could care less when the opponent agrees to it. You are just glad that they did because it means more money in your pocket. Even if it was two seconds before the coin toss, you would be like "whew, that was close, "
Yet you keep harping that John hasn't excepted Lou's raise yet, Why, afterall he has until 2 seconds before the coin flip to do so. John is very busy for the next few days. The final bet will be decided before the coin flip, not on here right now as you want it to be.
Since you are the expert on gambling though let me ask u a question. John and Lou were at Derby City, John had a pocket full of money, his nose wide open wanting to play, but Lou ran home so fast the door couldn't hit him in the ass. So if Lou is this big favorite in the game, has a 10,000 dollar future bet locked in, WHY DIDN'T HE TORTURE JOHN AT DERBY CITY? Lou had the perfect set up as the heavy favorite but declined. Why didn't he play then?
Click to expand...

Ever consider that Lou would of had to win $7,000 then to break even? If he had tortured John then, John would forfeit his 3k and not played later. Plus, Lou might not have had the money on him to play for that amount at that time. Not to mention that not playing then played right into Lou's hand.
 
cookie man said:
Your words "Fourth, as my post made abundantly clear, if you are trying to up the bet because you think you will win and you want to win more money, you could care less when the opponent agrees to it. You are just glad that they did because it means more money in your pocket. Even if it was two seconds before the coin toss, you would be like "whew, that was close, "
Yet you keep harping that John hasn't excepted Lou's raise yet, Why, afterall he has until 2 seconds before the coin flip to do so. John is very busy for the next few days. The final bet will be decided before the coin flip, not on here right now as you want it to be.
Since you are the expert on gambling though let me ask u a question. John and Lou were at Derby City, John had a pocket full of money, his nose wide open wanting to play, but Lou ran home so fast the door couldn't hit him in the ass. So if Lou is this big favorite in the game, has a 10,000 dollar future bet locked in, WHY DIDN'T HE TORTURE JOHN AT DERBY CITY? Lou had the perfect set up as the heavy favorite but declined. Why didn't he play then?
Click to expand...

Nobody that believes they are the favorite, and has a chance to win another extra 10k, is going to play games and turn it down and then hope that they guy will still be willing to bet that extra 10k a week later on game day. That's dumb. When you are literally begging and screaming for a larger bet, and the other guy finally accepts, you are going to jump on it before they have a chance to change their mind--IF you were asking for the larger bet because you actually did think you were the favorite and were trying to maximize your winnings. Which is what John has proclaimed was the case time and time again.

But actions speak louder than words, and all John's actions say he was just trying to high roll Lou and get in his head--he never really wanted to bet 20k with Lou and figured Lou would end up saying no, and if he didn't (which is what happened), then he would just use some dumb excuse to back out like "I'm not going to jump through hoops and let him dictate..."

As for why Lou didn't play John at the Derby, it is pretty obvious and common sense and Neil already covered it perfectly in a post above. If Lou thinks he can beat John at pool, then by not playing at Derby Lou will win 10k when they play their scheduled match next week.

But if Lou decided to play John at the Derby and won say 2k, then John would just forfeit his 3k no show money for their match next week and not play because he then knows he can't win and doesn't want to lose all 10k. And now Lou only has 5k (the 2k from Derby and 3k no show money), instead of the 10k he will win by just not playing at Derby and waiting for their match.

As Neil said, it would only make sense for Lou to play John at the Derby if they could have played for at least 7k, something that just probably wasn't possible for a number of reasons. And even playing for 7k may not have made sense because by waiting the extra time until the match next week gives more time for John to decide to play for even more than 10k. Not that John would do that, unless he changes his mind. He has now clearly shown with actions that he has no interest in betting more than 10k with Lou and that it was just a high roll move.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
As for why Lou didn't play John at the Derby, it is pretty obvious and common sense and Neil already covered it perfectly in a post above.

(Snip a lot of wild speculation on the motivation to gamble big at any time)

(John Barton) has now clearly shown with actions that he has no interest in betting more than 10k with Lou and that it was just a high roll move.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of decoding, but I don't think John or Lou went through all that thought process. But, both can answer themselves.

The reverse high roll on Lou's part is a great move. And I assume an answer would come Monday. The coin hasn't flipped yet.

Freddie <~~~ interesting how so many see it so differently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top