Buying "surrender hands" from other players

[21gunsalute]

21gun, I was apologizing for how things went and explaining that you arguing a moot point that will never ever happen makes people believe you are arguing something else. I explained it very clearly I believe as to how you endlessly arguing about something off point that will never ever happen caused every reasonable person to believe you had to be arguing something else. You still continue at it. Nobody who is trying to buy a surrender hand will ever go partners unless the surrender is so unbelievably bad like a huge +EV hand. You slapped back the hand of friendship and continue your attacks rather than understand why people don't understand what you are saying because it will never happen.

It is like talking about moon rocks and some guy joins in saying if the moon were made of blue cheese you could eat it. Well the moon isn't made of blue cheese and nobody is going partners on a surrender hand unless the real possibility of the seller renegging happens. This is a consideration and danger for any scavenger play. Try to understand that you are arguing a moot and pointless point so we can all move on. The fact that you continue to fight when the hand of friendship is offered along with an explanation of how everyone can't understand your logic says a lot. Now please can you except the apology offered by me for everyone and stop talking about the moon being made of blue cheese. The player offers to share the hand and the buyer refuses the same as if the seller simply didn't want to do anything other than surrender to the casino.

Well if that was an apology it was the worst apology ever, and I'm not arguing a moot point! You're the one who keeps attacking me. You're the one who keeps twisting everything around. You're the one who out and out slandered me. You're the one who hasn't yet apologized for these crimes and yet you're the one who keeps insisting that I'm the one who keeps dragging the point on endlessly, when in fact it was you who once again brought up the subject, you who once again went on the attack, and you who once again put yet another twist on this. Knock it off! The only thing I want to see from you is an apology! No more twists, no more attacks, no more rationalizing your behavior! Nada!

[21gunsalute]

The thing that got me was this: The player wanted to surrender his hand. When another player offers to buy his surrender...all of a sudden, the terms CHANGE.

It'd be like, if a player is doubling down 11v6, but doesn't have enough (or doesn't want) to double for the full amount, and another player asks if he can put money ($50) on the rest of the double. After the hand wins, the original player says something like, "Well, the terms change once you put money on my hand. Your money doesn't get paid 1:1, but it gets paid 0.5:1 -- so here's your $75 ... I'll be keeping the other $25."

Wrong! You, Tthree and Freightman are the ones changing the terms. If the hand in question was a double or a split you'd be in 50/50 and would split the proceeds 50/50. Once again, you cannot "buy a surrender". All you're doing is convincing the person who was going to surrender the hand into rescinding his surrender and playing out the hand for which you've invested a 50% share into the hand. If you buy a split are you entitled to all the winnings on that hand? No! If you take a double for someone are you entitled to all the winnings on that hand? No! Likewise, if you convince another player not to surrender a hand but to play it out and give him half his bet, you're only entitled to 50% of the proceeds. The hand is still his. Why are you trying to change the terms? If you try to "buy my surrender", I'm going to tell you up front that I still have to play out the hand and if we win we're splitting it 50/50! Those are my terms! Those would be the terms of any reasonable person. Nothing has changed. If you don't like the terms, take a hike.

[Three]

Here you go.I will simply quote it rather than retype it for a third time.

21gun, I am sorry about the way things went.

[Three]

Once again, you cannot "buy a surrender". All you're doing is convincing the person who was going to surrender the hand into rescinding his surrender and playing out the hand for which you've invested a 50% share into the hand.

Why will you not stop. The player already decided to sell his hand for 50% of his bet. You simply ask if he would allow you to be the one to pay him and play it as the buyer would like. It is a reasonable request that most would not have a problem with. Some would not do it for any number of reasons and the transaction would not occur. End of discussion. Nobody offered to be partners and nobody would be willing to be partners unless the hand was a +EV hand. If your counter offer was made for your surrender nobody would take it. Most people at the table would probably laugh and say what a good joke you just made. Nobody would take you seriously because it is a ridiculous counter offer.

Once again if the the only transaction that would occur were to take place just like any scavenger play you run the risk of being cheated by the seller in the manner you allude to but are not actually saying. H*ll the seller could keep all the money including your contribution in any scavenger play. That is why many casinos don't allow you to put any money on another's spot. One guy in a thousand is a con man/thief that will cheat the other player out of his rightful chips. ONE TIME I saw a lady pit boss force a player to pay the other his just due on a scavenger play. He kept refusing. She told him she was trying to be nice about it and if he continued to deny her request she would call the police. The guy paid up and left very mad that he didn't get away with cheating the guy that put money up with his permission as a bet not a loan. I couldn't believe what I saw. That has never happened before or since. Usually the casino will not get involved because they have regulations but in fact a crime had occurred. The money was a bet for the chip owner not the spot player. The spot player said it was a gift. Only the chip holder knows the intent so the player had no leg to stand on. The scammer/cheat was not scene again by me in that casino. I played there regularly for a long time as my favorite store although it is out of my rotation now due to deteriorating playing conditions.

[Jabberwocky]

A similar case arises when a bet is placed within the betting circle. You may remove it before the cards are dealt. After that it's a contract bet.

[Freightman]

Wrong! You, Tthree and Freightman are the ones changing the terms. If the hand in question was a double or a split you'd be in 50/50 and would split the proceeds 50/50. Once again, you cannot "buy a surrender". All you're doing is convincing the person who was going to surrender the hand into rescinding his surrender and playing out the hand for which you've invested a 50% share into the hand. If you buy a split are you entitled to all the winnings on that hand? No! If you take a double for someone are you entitled to all the winnings on that hand? No! Likewise, if you convince another player not to surrender a hand but to play it out and give him half his bet, you're only entitled to 50% of the proceeds. The hand is still his. Why are you trying to change the terms? If you try to "buy my surrender", I'm going to tell you up front that I still have to play out the hand and if we win we're splitting it 50/50! Those are my terms! Those would be the terms of any reasonable person. Nothing has changed. If you don't like the terms, take a hike.

The humor continues

[Jabberwocky]

[QUOTE=Tthree;109857]Why will you not stop. The player already decided to sell his hand for 50% of his bet.

"You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

[metronome]

Geez, I go away to count cards and this thread still lives....
An aside, t'was a fairly brutal BJ Labor day 4 day weekend, but ground it out to an almost break-even.
The missus however, saved the day once again by netting a $1500.00 profit at Dbl. Bonus Poker. We deposited an extra 1K into the bankroll.

Now 21gun, kind sir, you're going to surrender a 3rd ex-wife step-child hand....I still miss the logic...you get the same return, 50% of the original wager, then you release all control of said hand...where's the problem...if it wins for the buyer, so be it , you relinquished control... in return for 50% of your original wager.
I may be the 20w. refrigerator bulb in the 200w. BJ universe, but I still don't get it........................................

[RS]

A "surrender" is simply selling your hand to the house for 50% of the original bet.

Is there a different outcome for you if you sell your hand to the house or sell it to a player, both for the same price of 50%?

[21gunsalute]

Here you go.I will simply quote it rather than retype it for a third time.

You said you're sorry for "the way things went", nothing about being sorry for your own horrendous actions! You called me a troll, a cheat, said I'd make a bad teammate and a whole slew of other things that are untrue and unwarranted! These actions were deliberate on your part and I see no apologies for any of this crap! You then called my argument ridiculous. No, the argument is not ridiculous and my argument has been substantiated by several members here. You may not agree with my argument, just like I don't agree with the merits of the implementation of yours, but both arguments are valid. You simply chose to attempt to invalidate my argument my calling my character into question...no wait, you performed a complete character assassination and then never apologized for doing so! You made a mock apology in which you took no responsibility or blame for your atrocities!

[Three]

You then called my argument ridiculous.

Your argument is ridiculous. It is a near unanimous sentiment that you argued a moot point that could only occur if you planned on renegging on the original deal. Like I said over and over again this renegging is a danger in any scavenger play. Your continuing to argue that you would do this is evidence it is a real danger. Nobody would buy your surrender unless it was plus EV. The only way they would split it is if you changed the deal after the fact. If you can't admit this then you clearly are just someone that can't change their position no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. This definitely appears to be the case. I think if you examine the case of someone agreeing with you, you will find it to be sarcastic humor not actual agreement. You ma have gotten one person to agree out of sympathy. The overwhelming majority found your position beyond ridiculous and found your faith in such fantasy very humorous.

[Ouchez]

Tthree,

I think those involved in this thread that have made attacks upon the character and reputation of 21 should realize they went over the top in their verbal assaults, developed a mob mentality and then attacked, much as H.S. bullies would. I think it is time to apologize to 21 for the personal attacks, and simply agree to disagree on the scavenge play tactic being discussed in this thread. I do know that I, KJ, and Tbonz have expressed the opinion that the real world execution of this scavenge play is suicidal, and I think many more feel the same.

Again, I know 21 to be a very skilled AP, and a gentlemen, that puts in many hours of play each month and has been backed off or worse in several casinos. He is a true veteran that deserves respect and he for sure has mine. He is a true BJ Warrior, and a true BJ Warrior does not take insults concerning his play lightly, you are seeing that now in this thread on the part of 21.

So please, let all those involved apologize for the insults to 21, it is the right thing to do, and we will all think much better of you for doing so, and you will feel better also.

Ouchez

[Three]

I do know that I, KJ, and Tbonz have expressed the opinion that the real world execution of this scavenge play is suicidal, and I think many more feel the same.

I said the same as well although suicidal might be an overstatement.

I did apologize for the way things went. That covers all of what you are talking about and is in fact only aimed at what you are talking about. If that isn't good enough for him then I don't know what to say. It is also time he admit he has been arguing a moot point and pot stirring. What he needed to say when putting forth the argument he did was that every scavenger play has the risk that the original bettor will not pay as according to the deal. It is a risk in every scavenger play. To argue that the deal made is not buying a surrender hand because you can't buy a surrender hand is stupid. I have seen it done before on more than one occasion. I have never seen what 21gun is talking about occur. I have seen other scavenger plays go the way of the original bettor trying to cheat the other player. It is a risk for any scavenger play. It is also a risk taken by the original investor because as you know there can be repercussions later that will make the money seem insignificant. People still do it anyway on rare occasions.