Buying "surrender hands" from other players

[Three]

No, you're the one arguing a moot point! I said right from the get go that if you ever attempted to buy my surrender it would be according to my terms, which are that we split the proceeds 50/50.

I said exactly that. You make your terms and they are refused by the other player so there is no transaction. Any discussion after that is a moot point. There can't be a buy of your surrender and the other player won't go partners. The only reason to discuss further is the hybrid were a deception occurs. This is a real danger in any scavenger play . What all of us are discussing is buying another players surrender at his/her price that is already set. They can either agree and sell to another player or sell to the casino for the same price.

There may be confusion on what a moot point means because in the US it has a different meaning than elsewhere. In the US:

It means there is no point in debating something because it doesn't matter.

In this case you won't sell your surrender and the other player won't be a partner in the hand so you are arguing a moot point. No transaction will occur so any discussion of what you would do with your version of selling your hand is moot. What difference does what your deal is if the deal will never be made if you are upfront about it? It is moot.

[Nyne]

A moo point...it's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter!

[max85]

I bought a dbl down today, he had no money, I won, hahah

[Math Demon]

.
Why is everybody piling up on this thread?

[21gunsalute]

I said exactly that. You make your terms and they are refused by the other player so there is no transaction. Any discussion after that is a moot point. There can't be a buy of your surrender and the other player won't go partners. The only reason to discuss further is the hybrid were a deception occurs. This is a real danger in any scavenger play . What all of us are discussing is buying another players surrender at his/her price that is already set. They can either agree and sell to another player or sell to the casino for the same price.

There may be confusion on what a moot point means because in the US it has a different meaning than elsewhere. In the US:

It means there is no point in debating something because it doesn't matter.

In this case you won't sell your surrender and the other player won't be a partner in the hand so you are arguing a moot point. No transaction will occur so any discussion of what you would do with your version of selling your hand is moot. What difference does what your deal is if the deal will never be made if you are upfront about it? It is moot.

So if it were a moot point and you understood exactly what I was saying then why did you slander me repeatedly? That is not a moot point.

[Three]

Because the only reason for you to discuss further implies a deception as the point is moot otherwise. So to discuss the moot part of your argument deception had to be present.

[Three]

Because the only reason for you to discuss further implies a deception as the point is moot otherwise. So to discuss the moot part of your argument deception had to be present. It is the only logical reason to discuss it. Otherwise it is a lot of wasted time since a moot point merits no discussion that is what makes it a moot point.

[Freightman]

The humor continues

[Rainmaker]

Because the only reason for you to discuss further implies a deception as the point is moot otherwise. So to discuss the moot part of your argument deception had to be present. It is the only logical reason to discuss it. Otherwise it is a lot of wasted time since a moot point merits no discussion that is what makes it a moot point.

Partially concurring: It is moot and deception is implied. Partially dissenting: Deception is contigent upon future events; there is no clearly imminent danger that someone would actually be deceived by the ambiguous situation 21 described. It warrants no discussion.

[bossman]

I really don't have anything to add to this thread except that I have seen several temper tantrums by people that I usually respect as calm and professional when they are doing their business. Right, wrong, or indifferent, when I see ANY player take a steam like this in my joint, I typically see them mess up as well. All of you would serve yourselves well to simply abandon this thread and stop letting little things bother you. Eventually it will creep into your play and make you even more noticeable.

[Math Demon]

I really don't have anything to add to this thread except that I have seen several temper tantrums by people that I usually respect as calm and professional when they are doing their business. Right, wrong, or indifferent, when I see ANY player take a steam like this in my joint, I typically see them mess up as well. All of you would serve yourselves well to simply abandon this thread and stop letting little things bother you. Eventually it will creep into your play and make you even more noticeable.

Good advice, bossman.

Is your joint in Vegas or in the East Coast?

What are the first signs that you notice to make you suspect that a player is a counter or an advantage player?

Thanks.

[Rainmaker]

I really don't have anything to add to this thread except that I have seen several temper tantrums by people that I usually respect as calm and professional when they are doing their business. Right, wrong, or indifferent, when I see ANY player take a steam like this in my joint, I typically see them mess up as well. All of you would serve yourselves well to simply abandon this thread and stop letting little things bother you. Eventually it will creep into your play and make you even more noticeable.

Well, really, I can't how this thread can affect anyone's play. But point taken, this is a pointless temper tantrum thread where both sides are wrong. However, if I had to pick a side...

[21gunsalute]

Because the only reason for you to discuss further implies a deception as the point is moot otherwise. So to discuss the moot part of your argument deception had to be present. It is the only logical reason to discuss it. Otherwise it is a lot of wasted time since a moot point merits no discussion that is what makes it a moot point.

Wrong Tthree, and you know it very well. I clearly stated that if you tried to buy MY surrender that these would be MY terms. It was not a moot point. If you were at my table and tried to buy my surrender those would be the terms you'd be subjected too. You're the one who pushed the envelope...and kept pushing the envelope...and kept pushing the envelope. Furthermore, even if I was wrong to keep defending myself from your baseless attacks, your comment above still makes no sense. You had absolutely no right to make any of these false accusations whether I was "pushing a moot point" or not! You can't simply make deliberately false accusations about a persons character simply because you don't agree with him, or think his point is moot. So once again, why did you resort to such underhanded tactics?