JB vs Lou - Let's Get It On

Status
Not open for further replies.
shinobi said:
It has a lot to do with it when the frequency and length of posts ratio is so absurdly one sided. If you are going to point so many fingers at Lou whilst ignoring the obviousness of your own berating, I'm calling you on it.

If Earl Strickland goes to 100 tournaments and complains 95 times, versus all other players combined complaining 5 times... do you feel the frequency of his complaining is worthy of note? I do.

You run around poking people with sticks over and over and over and over, and over and over. Then when they finally react you point at them and go "See!!!!!!". And then you hold it over them for an eternity.

Meanwhile you conveniently ignore or even lie about the reality of your own BS drama situations that you create or fueled the fire of.

People on here have talked about feeling guilty for taking money from an emotionally unstable guy. You're pretty much stating you are would surely lose $20,000. I can't speak for Lou, but I suspect he finds you so annoying he won't even go take it because he doesn't want to deal with more inevitable BS.

Time for a reality check...
Click to expand...

Well no surprise that we disagree on this. Then again the majority of negative posters left here all agree that there is no need to have industry people and pros here unless those folks keep their heads down and never disagree with anyone.

Frequency and length don't matter, content does.

My content is often quite helpful and useful. The negative posters almost never post anything useful or helpful.

And no, I don't think I will lose 20k if Lou shows up. I think I could lose if I play like a donkey as I did last time. I could lose if I play great. But I could win as well or I wouldn't make the offer.

As for BS please. Three people made a coordinated effort to screw with me for several years to goad me into that match.

They got what they wanted and I followed their script instead of my own. If you can't see the bs in that from them then we truly have no common ground.

I miss Facebook already. 20,000 people on there follow me and I get less shit all year than you people fling in one day.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
shinobi said:
It has a lot to do with it when the frequency and length of posts ratio is so absurdly one sided. If you are going to point so many fingers at Lou whilst ignoring the obviousness of your own berating, I'm calling you on it.

If Earl Strickland goes to 100 tournaments and complains 95 times, versus all other players combined complaining 5 times... do you feel the frequency of his complaining is worthy of note? I do.

You run around poking people with sticks over and over and over and over, and over and over. Then when they finally react you point at them and go "See!!!!!!". And then you hold it over them for an eternity.

Meanwhile you conveniently ignore or even lie about the reality of your own BS drama situations that you create or fueled the fire of.

People on here have talked about feeling guilty for taking money from an emotionally unstable guy. You're pretty much stating you are would surely lose $20,000. I can't speak for Lou, but I suspect he finds you so annoying he won't even go take it because he doesn't want to deal with more inevitable BS.

Time for a reality check...
Click to expand...
I'm surprised Lou's cut at 10k in SL is enough to get him on the table ,, money will come and go but the win over JB is priceless
1
 
I can't tell if either of you really wants to play.

It's impossible for two closed minds to negotiate. This is why we have all these problems in the world. Negotiations between earnest parties require give and take. I think each is being too steadfast.

John, Lou only wants to bet 10K. You can probably get some side action for the other 10K. That's his max and he's made that clear.

Lou, why does John have to come to you? Why not suggest a neutral city if you refuse to go to OK?

Why don't you guys sleep on it and see what tomorrow brings.
 
On Saturday morning this will go to less than 10. uploadfromtaptalk1445389578855.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
A polite beg to the mods and posting parties to stop

Please shut this monster thread down.....please
 
white1 said:
Please shut this monster thread down.....please
Click to expand...

these two fellas woofed at each other for a l-o-n-g time, then played for $10k.

they're barking again. :smile:

what's offensive to you?

better yet, if you are offended, why not simply ignore this thread? :confused:

best,
brian kc
 
TATE said:
If this is going to happen, each side needs to make concessions. I see 3 days as more than enough I think [JB's] venue request is completely reasonable under the circumstances that you're not asking for weight and are down 10K already.

If Lou agrees to Oklahoma, you agree to 10K, those are entirely reasonable and equal concessions.
Click to expand...

Lou was ready to bet 25k last time. He had it in hand on site come match time. JB had said he wanted to bet up to 30k, or maybe more but when it came time to actually put up the cash for the bet, JB refused to bet more than 10k come crunch time and so was the sole cause of the bet being limited to only 10k.

JB picked the table and playing location (which was far away for his opponent) the last time too.

You really think Lou is supposed to give in on both these negotiation points again when he was the one that gave in on them last time too? I don't think you really believe that. How it works in the real world when you are doing something a second time around is when you got to pick all the particulars last time, I get to pick them this time. You picked the table and location last time, I pick the table and location this time. You limited the bet to only 10k last time when I was willing to bet 25k, then you certainly have no standing to expect that I should have to bet more than 10k this time when you refused to do the same.

One side giving in this time, on the points they got their way on last time, is what makes for a fair and equitable negotiation that evens it all out for both sides. Nothing is more fair and equitable than that, each equally getting their way, and on the same things. And JB being willing to play for only 10k is not a big "concession" as you paint it out to be. It is just him accepting the same thing he forced on his opponent the last time around. Doing what you are supposed to to even it out for forcing the exact same thing on your opponent last time is not a concession, it is just being fair about that point. Now JB needs to play the match at the table and location of Lou's choosing as well, just like Lou did the first time around. That is the only thing that is reasonable and fair and equitable considering that this is the second match and it isn't reasonable for the same guy to have to do all the giving in every time.

Now you can make the argument that in your opinion Lou should give in on everything again and let JB call all the shots again because you feel Lou is heavy enough favorite that he should just accept that which is unfair anyway so he doesn't lose out on that money he will likely win. Right or wrong having that opinion is fair enough, just don't try to characterize it as being fair and equitable, because it is as far from that as possible. There is nothing fair and equitable about the same guy once again getting their way on all the same things (which was pretty much everything and certainly the most major things) while the other guy is once again having to give in on everything the second time around too. You picked X, Y and Z last time, I get to pick them this time--that is the only thing that is reasonable, fair, and equitable.
 
Last edited:
One more time, I asked Lou four times prior to the match to double the bet.

Four times. All they had to do us say yes and ship the money.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
8pack said:
I dont think anyone cares. Either you wanna play or you don't.
Click to expand...
I want to play. Just not enough to go anywhere. Although the desire is fading a bit. You have $100 a game action even all the time though any time you get enough money together for a road trip. I already know you're triple tough.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
JB Cases said:
I want to play. Just not enough to go anywhere. Although the desire is fading a bit. You have $100 a game action even all the time though any time you get enough money together for a road trip. I already know you're triple tough.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'll start saving.:smile: I'm actually pretty easy...well most of the time.
Come see me Johnny, I'm your huckleberry.:)

You know me?? Just like aiming your being fooled by what you think.



PS....Maybe I need some serious weight from you, who knows.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Lou was ready to bet 25k last time. He had it in hand on site come match time. JB had said he wanted to bet up to 30k, or maybe more but when it came time to actually put up the cash for the bet, JB refused to bet more than 10k come crunch time and so was the sole cause of the bet being limited to only 10k.

JB picked the table and playing location (which was far away for his opponent) the last time too.

You really think Lou is supposed to give in on both these negotiation points again when he was the one that gave in on them last time too? I don't think you really believe that. How it works in the real world when you are doing something a second time around is when you got to pick all the particulars last time, I get to pick them this time. You picked the table and location last time, I pick the table and location this time. You limited the bet to only 10k last time when I was willing to bet 25k, then you certainly have no standing to expect that I should have to bet more than 10k this time when you refused to do the same.

One side giving in this time, on the points they got their way on last time, is what makes for a fair and equitable negotiation that evens it all out for both sides. Nothing is more fair and equitable than that, each equally getting their way, and on the same things. And JB being willing to play for only 10k is not a big "concession" as you paint it out to be. It is just him accepting the same thing he forced on his opponent the last time around. Doing what you are supposed to to even it out for forcing the exact same thing on your opponent last time is not a concession, it is just being fair about that point. Now JB needs to play the match at the table and location of Lou's choosing as well, just like Lou did the first time around. That is the only thing that is reasonable and fair and equitable considering that this is the second match and it isn't reasonable for the same guy to have to do all the giving in every time.

Now you can make the argument that in your opinion Lou should give in on everything again and let JB call all the shots again because you feel Lou is heavy enough favorite that he should just accept that which is unfair anyway so he doesn't lose out on that money he will likely win. Right or wrong having that opinion is fair enough, just don't try to characterize it as being fair and equitable, because it is as far from that as possible. There is nothing fair and equitable about the same guy once again getting their way on all the same things (which was pretty much everything and certainly the most major things) while the other guy is once again having to give in on everything the second time around too. You picked X, Y and Z last time, I get to pick them this time--that is the only thing that is reasonable, fair, and equitable.
Click to expand...

John could've just as easily asked for weight. Instead, he asked for home field advantage (but on a diamond, not a gaffe table) and a $20K bet. Essentially, all Lou has to do to claim his prize is go to Oklahoma for 3 days. How hard is that.

I'll add this, though... I finally understand why winning that much money is no big deal to Lou. Because he'll be risking none of his own and stands to win only a few grand. So let's be clear about it. Lou isn't gambling. He didn't gamble last time and wouldn't be doing so this time either. It won't really matter much to Lou, financially, win or lose. If he loses, he gives up some bragging rights, that's all. If he wins, he'll get paid an appearance fee. Either way, he's not gambling. That's John's department.
 
NYC cue dude said:
John could've just as easily asked for weight. Instead, he asked for home field advantage (but on a diamond, not a gaffe table) and a $20K bet. Essentially, all Lou has to do to claim his prize is go to Oklahoma for 3 days. How hard is that.

I'll add this, though... I finally understand why winning that much money is no big deal to Lou. Because he'll be risking none of his own and stands to win only a few grand. So let's be clear about it. Lou isn't gambling. He didn't gamble last time and wouldn't be doing so this time either. It won't really matter much to Lou, financially, win or lose. If he loses, he gives up some bragging rights, that's all. If he wins, he'll get paid an appearance fee. Either way, he's not gambling. That's John's department.
Click to expand...

And money does not motivate everyone.
Imagine that?
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Lou was ready to bet 25k last time. He had it in hand on site come match time. JB had said he wanted to bet up to 30k, or maybe more but when it came time to actually put up the cash for the bet, JB refused to bet more than 10k come crunch time and so was the sole cause of the bet being limited to only 10k.

JB picked the table and playing location (which was far away for his opponent) the last time too.

You really think Lou is supposed to give in on both these negotiation points again when he was the one that gave in on them last time too? I don't think you really believe that. How it works in the real world when you are doing something a second time around is when you got to pick all the particulars last time, I get to pick them this time. You picked the table and location last time, I pick the table and location this time. You limited the bet to only 10k last time when I was willing to bet 25k, then you certainly have no standing to expect that I should have to bet more than 10k this time when you refused to do the same.

One side giving in this time, on the points they got their way on last time, is what makes for a fair and equitable negotiation that evens it all out for both sides. Nothing is more fair and equitable than that, each equally getting their way, and on the same things. And JB being willing to play for only 10k is not a big "concession" as you paint it out to be. It is just him accepting the same thing he forced on his opponent the last time around. Doing what you are supposed to to even it out for forcing the exact same thing on your opponent last time is not a concession, it is just being fair about that point. Now JB needs to play the match at the table and location of Lou's choosing as well, just like Lou did the first time around. That is the only thing that is reasonable and fair and equitable considering that this is the second match and it isn't reasonable for the same guy to have to do all the giving in every time.

Now you can make the argument that in your opinion Lou should give in on everything again and let JB call all the shots again because you feel Lou is heavy enough favorite that he should just accept that which is unfair anyway so he doesn't lose out on that money he will likely win. Right or wrong having that opinion is fair enough, just don't try to characterize it as being fair and equitable, because it is as far from that as possible. There is nothing fair and equitable about the same guy once again getting their way on all the same things (which was pretty much everything and certainly the most major things) while the other guy is once again having to give in on everything the second time around too. You picked X, Y and Z last time, I get to pick them this time--that is the only thing that is reasonable, fair, and equitable.
Click to expand...

I am attempting to mediate this. The goal in any mediation is simply to try to get the parties to agree to something. Who's right, who's wrong - none of that matters and in fact, these stances work against the process. Facts don't matter. Often a mediator has to play both sides and juggle the facts. The goal is to nudge the parties to an agreement using any means available.

Let's face it, when people take a stance like "I'm right, they're wrong" you're not going to get anywhere. Even if something is morally right or factual, it works against the process of coming to an agreement that both parties love and/or hate equally.

Not long ago, I had to hire a professional mediator for one day. The cost? $6,000. She was able to bring both parties to the table, and bring their ludicrous, far apart demands to a settlement- she was incredible and well worth the money. She was able to do this because it was in everybody's interest to settle up but she used every trick in the book to make that happen. She shuttled from one room to another for 8 hours until she arrived at a settlement. I honestly didn't think it would happen.

My personal opinion doesn't count. FYI my personal opinion is, matching up like this over an internet argument was a crazy notion in the first place and I stated that in a previous thread. Mediators are not immune to their personal feelings. I am sympathetic to the fact that John lost 10K. For that, I believe he has the right to ask for some reasonable concessions, although the way he placed his non-negotiable challenge was doomed to failure if he really wanted to play.

John and Lou do not need to play. They do not need to settle. They either want to play or they don't. My feeling is, at this point, they don't seem to want to come to an agreement. So be it.
 
Last edited:
Kickin' Chicken said:
During many negotiations it can look like both sides are stuck but me, being the ever-optimistic fellow I am, I believe that if they want it to happen, Lou and John can work out the details for this re-match.

Stay civil and make some progress boys.

Lots of people would like to see this go off.

There's a real $20k carrot being dangled with just a few basic logistical issues to work out.

Get them worked out. :cool:

best,
brian kc
Click to expand...

Are they boxing ?

11177252_ori.jpg


:grin:
 
TATE said:
I am attempting to mediate this. The goal in any mediation is simply to try to get the parties to agree to something. Who's right, who's wrong - none of that matters and in fact, these stances work against the process. Facts don't matter. Often a mediator has to play both sides and juggle the facts. The goal is to nudge the parties to an agreement using any means available.

Let's face it, when people take a stance like "I'm right, they're wrong" you're not going to get anywhere. Even if something is morally right or factual, it works against the process of coming to an agreement that both parties love and/or hate equally.

Not long ago, I had to hire a professional mediator for one day. The cost? $6,000. She was able to bring both parties to the table, and bring their ludicrous, far apart demands to a settlement- she was incredible and well worth the money. She was able to do this because it was in everybody's interest to settle up but she used every trick in the book to make that happen. She shuttled from one room to another for 8 hours until she arrived at a settlement. I honestly didn't think it would happen.

My personal opinion doesn't count. FYI my personal opinion is, matching up like this over an internet argument was a crazy notion in the first place and I stated that in a previous thread. Mediators are not immune to their personal feelings. I am sympathetic to the fact that John lost 10K. For that, I believe he has the right to ask for some reasonable concessions, although the way he placed his non-negotiable challenge was doomed to failure if he really wanted to play.

John and Lou do not need to play. They do not need to settle. They either want to play or they don't. My feeling is, at this point, they don't seem to want to come to an agreement. So be it.
Click to expand...
Well you got half right it's settled in Lou's mind so he does not have to play

1
 
NYC cue dude said:
John could've just as easily asked for weight.

Instead, he asked for home field advantage (but on a diamond, not a gaffe table) and a $20K bet.

It won't really matter much to Lou, financially, win or lose. If he loses, he gives up some bragging rights, that's all. If he wins, he'll get paid an appearance fee.
Click to expand...

John could ask for weight or anything else but it certainly wouldn't mean it was reasonable or to be taken seriously. If two guys who claim similar skill and high runs play a short set with a relatively close score, and afterwards the loser still claims that he is the better player who should have won but just dogged it on a fluke and will win the next time, I don't think anybody would think that weight was in line for the next match up and that is exactly the case here.

So the guy that gave in on everything last time should be the one to give in on everything this time too? I don't think anybody who isn't biased sees it that way unless weight were in order and that just isn't the case here based on a single short set that wasn't a blow out. The way it works is a give and take. You picked last time, I pick this time. You picked this, I pick that.

As far as it not mattering to Lou much financially this time, that is assuming he doesn't get more of his own action than last time. But even if he doesn't, for some guys (admittedly very few) it matters even more that they win for and protect the investment of their backer than if it were their own money. I could see Lou possibly being one of those guys. And for some people the pride is more important than the money (although at this level of money again it is probably very few). I don't propose to know exactly how much this match would matter to Lou and why, but I do know it it is possible for it to still matter a lot even with a backer, and possibly even more than it does to the guy betting his own in some cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top