Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Indian Charlie
Now you are playing the role of the martyr! Because I disagree with you, I don't like you?
Come to think of it, I'll have to concede that one to you. Good point.
Now, to address your other points. I pretty much leave people alone and try not to make judgments about them. That includes determining what in their eyes should or should not be a sucker bet, or should or should not be a severe misfortune.
I guess what I've been trying to illustrate to you, quite poorly apparently, is that maybe it is not your place to determine what does or does not make up a severe misfortune for other people. You do not know the first thing about the person who lost that bet, so to assume it didn't hurt him/her is in my eyes a wild assumption.
And you say I'm the one who's judgmental?
The question I really want to know, and might explain things, is why do you even care one way or the other that a bridgejumper won or lost his/her bet?
Honestly, can you tell me why you would take any glee in anyone losing any sized bet? The whole concept is utterly ridiculous to me.
Believe me, I do understand that it's a 'sucker' bet. However, since just about the minimum takeout on any horse racing bet is 19% or so (last I checked anyways), a solid argument could be made that anyone who bets horses is a sucker.
I guess that makes it okay then for me to laugh at you when you lose.
|
You can absolutely laugh at me when I lose -- there are threads in the Selection room from playing Hawthorne that will have some good opportunities that you can pull up if you'd like. I'm not getting bent out of shape with people disagreeing with my wagering strategy. I wasn't aware that other people would take my opinion of their wagering strategy so seriously.
I never said anything of the kind along the lines that this bet would or would not hurt the person playing it, however, the less money this person had and the more financial hurt it inflicted on them -- the more the sucker-factor increases.
If PG1985 were still here and were going to "bet" $1000 to win on Teuflesburg to win the Derby, everyone would try to talk him out of it. Granted, that bet would pay off about $100 on the dollar, but that's neither here nor there. It would be a sucker bet regardless of the amount bet and the potential return. So when we increase the amount wagered and decrease the potential return, the bet just becomes more of a sucker bet.
I could personally not care less about who the person is who bet the idiotic show wager -- if it was a single mother trying to make $2500 for her kids or a multi-billionaire who considered it pocket change, it doesn't decrease the stupidity of the wager nor my glee in watching someone with such an absolutely foolhardy wagering strategy fall flat on their face. If that makes me mean, again, so be it. If that makes you like me even less, so be it. No skin off my back for being reviled for calling out what is potentially the dumbest/riskiest wager in horse racing.
We horseplayers who take the game seriously cherish "dead" money in the pools and yearn for the days when there was more, yet I'm the bad guy for calling out dead money in the pools and finding amusement and joy in JUST HOW DEAD that money was (and just how dead that money can be in every bridge-jumping situation)?
Backwards logic, buddy.
Too bad it's late and I don't have time tonight to digest anymore of this insanity.