All Forums | Penalty Box

SCALABRINE vs. PACKERSBACKERS - Loser Leaves Covers for Eternity

...

Participants:

Posts: 3208

scalabrine

Banned

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 28221

Posted: Oct. 31, 2017 - 3:43 PM ET #1351

What I am saying is you say I am done here. So that pretty much means I will lose the Colorado State bet.

So I said man up and take the other side.

BWS77

Legend

Joined: Jan, 2010

Posts: 35351

Posted: Oct. 31, 2017 - 3:44 PM ET #1352

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:

Club let me help you out with that.

And just to add validity to what I say, I'd love to see Hugh try to refute any of. this. If he does, you can easily go back and see what he did yourself.

So I started a capping contest with Packers, because he is the second biggest troll on this site (Hugh #1) and I wanted him off the site. So we both agreed to put our accounts up (after some bickering where Packers wanted me to bet ONLY Tennis, his best sport, But that is old news now).

So the OP is clear. I'm not going to write 10,000 rules for this contest given, even though they are trolls I trust them as cappers to play it straight up.

So Packers is 9-9 thus far and I have zero complaints on any of his picks. And he will say the same of me.

So in the middle of all this Hugh offered to take the bet as well, so I have to beat both of them separately. I'm fine with that.

Now, Hugh took the Packers +6 over the Saints two weeks ago.

I left for the day (yes I have a life) and I came back 12/16 hours later and saw that Hugh had put in a bet for Saints +3.5.

So yes, he played both sides of one game. His original binding pick lost. His pick that I most certainly wouldn't have accepted since I saw it, won.

Hugh's reason for taking both sides? He was trying to middle the game.

Now in the normal course of betting with a book there is a penalty for that if you lose. It's juice.

In this contest there is no juice.

Now Hugh is 58. We know that he knows just on the basis of not paying juice, he's at an advantage. Since it's a risk free bet.

But you say, "Scal, he's also taking a loss!" Yes he is. But the problem is he was UP in the contest.

So let's say you are 8-11 in a race to 20 and I'm 9-9. I can lock up the contest playing both sides of one game. No risk. I finish 10-10 and you cannot win.

So on this fact alone, at any point, I was trusting no one would do such a thing. There is quite an advantage to doing it when you are up in a contest with a capped total of picks at 20.

Did Packers do it? No. He knows that I know he shouldn't be doing it.

So that's #1.

#2 is that Hugh took a reduced juice line from 5Dimes for his second pick.

It was the Stros +.5 runs 5 inning line (which was NOT -110 with REGULAR juice) in game 4. Anyone playing that bet expects a pitcher's duel.

The Dodgers were up 4-0 in the top 4th so he's dead right? No. Stros tied it up 4-4 with two outs in the bottom of the inning.

Dodgers go up 7-4 in the top of the 5th he's dead right? No, in the bottom of the inning 2 strikes 2 outs no one on a walk happens and the Stros tie it up 7-7 and he wins that bet too.

Regardless of how that is the worst bad beat in how he won it, I NEVER expected someone to bet a reduced juice line when I said -110.

So in SHORT (Cliffnotes):

1 pick he bet both sides of one game. So one of his wins is illegitimate and he should be 9-8. The other bet was on a game that shouldn't have been played because the price was not allowed with a site discount.

So guess what he SHOULD be: A fu**ing .500 capper. The VERY THING he disparages.

As does BWS who is 1-9 in his last 10 hockey bets.

Ain't that a BIT** reading all this? Fu**ing frauds, which is why I call his Basta*d in a Basket Hugh Madoff.

Can't even play 20 games STRAIGHT UP. Packers besides the fact he is a di**head, no complaints.

Imagine that, looking for edges when you are UP. And of course the peanut gallery of bigots here supports him, emboldening him to do it again.

A disgrace of the highest order. I let it all go and counted it all.

You have nothing to complain about. You constantly say how Hugh and others (myself included) are the lowest of the low, the excrement of the site and yet you act surprised that some of these actions have occurred. If anything it means YOU fucked up and entered a contest where the rules that you created weren't air tight.