I am giving you all a second chance to bet on "even terms"...
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>> "Even terms"...? What does this mean...? Surely
>> you don't mean "even odds", do you...??
> Sure. Only greedy cowards like you would back
> down from a fair challenge like that.
Your piece of shit rigged bots will flag my moves as
"blunders", and rate me 700-800 points lower than
themselves, and you want me to bet on "even odds"?
You are plainly pathetic... :((
Actually you dumb shits never even realized what
opportunity you have missed...
You could have tweaked your piece of shit rigged
bots to flag its own moves as blunders and rate
itself 700-800 points lower than me... :))
Too late for that now...
But I will allow you dumb morons to still tweak your
piece of shit rigged bots to come down to my level,
and I will bet against them on "even odds"...
Let me clarify to not leave you any excuses: I will
play against any piece of shit rigged bot of your
choice N number of games, after which, if it rates
me at equal strength as itself, I will play another
N number of games for money on "even odds"...
Fair...?? :))
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>Let me clarify to not leave you any excuses: I will
>play against any piece of shit rigged bot of your
>choice N number of games, after which, if it rates
>me at equal strength as itself, I will play another
>N number of games for money on "even odds"...
>
>Fair...?? :))
Of course not. You know that XG won't rate you at equal strength, which
is why your cowardly greedy self is happy to make this (non-)offer.
Greedy cowards like you always find some way to sound impressive without
ever having to actually put up a fight.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Bradley K. Sherman
>play against any piece of shit rigged bot of your
>choice N number of games, after which, if it rates
>me at equal strength as itself, I will play another
>N number of games for money on "even odds"...
>
Why not just play best of 9 17-pt matches? Why
do you insist on making it so complicated? No
one cares about the ratings.
--bks
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote:
>Why not just play best of 9 17-pt matches? Why
>do you insist on making it so complicated?
Because he's a greedy coward.
He likes to make up pleasant nicknames like gnudung and mathshitter,
so I think that instead of Mu-rat, I'm going to call him 'Fraidy-rat
from now on. I'm sure 'Fraidy-rat will be delighted at this show of
acceptance from the mathshitting Ph.D. community.
William Womack
Fraidy-rat claims to be able to show a positive result against the
bots playing either match play or money play given a sufficient number
of trials with no handicap for playing strength.
Fraidy-rat claims that the bots demonstrate an inferior style of play
and that his "artistic" play is superior.
Fraidy-rat claims that those of us who want to judge a humans strength
based on the bots evaluation of their play are "pea brained morons"
because the bots evaluation are based on their inferior
"understanding" of the game.
Fraidy-rat is unwilling to wager on his ability to show a positive
result in a structured contest against the bots (even given a large
degree of latitude in setting conditions such as match length, number
of matches, and/or length of money session) without applying a
handicap based on the bots evaluation of his ability.
So Fraidy-rat insist that the only "fair" way to wager is to apply a
handicap to his results that is based on the inferior evaluation of a
bot that only "pea brained morons" would consider a legitimate
assessment of his playing ability.
In addition Fraidy-rat seems unwilling to demonstrate his ability to
beat the bots unless there is a wager involved. This seems strangely
contradictory for someone that claims that the want to overturn bot
play as their "gift to backgammon" and who says:
>Every time I hear the expression "money game" in relation to
>backgammon,
>my hairs start to crawl into my skin...
>Why can't you sick motherfucking gamblers find an easier way to gamble
>and stop degrading backgammon to the level of a gambling tool...?
To borrow your words, muratk, Do you see what is wrong with this
picture? Do you?
muratk
> So let me get this straight:
When I see responses like this from people like you, I get
a refreshed hope that eventually we will get to the bottom
of this, one way or another...
> Fraidy-rat claims to be able to show a positive result
> against the bots playing either match play or money play
> given a sufficient number of trials with no handicap for
> playing strength.
I might have let the cat out of the basket too soon but
can I still go back to argue that I get positive results
with a handicap in playing strength (at least as measured
"fairly" by the bot and not measured by me:))...
> Fraidy-rat claims that the bots demonstrate an inferior
> style of play and that his "artistic" play is superior.
I don't know who's ass you pulled out the word "artistic"
but the rest is accurate.
> Fraidy-rat claims that those of us who want to judge a
> humans strength based on the bots evaluation of their
> play are "pea brained morons"
I stopped at saying "pea brained morons" because I didn't
want to hurt your feelings too badly... ;)
> because the bots evaluation are based on their inferior
> "understanding" of the game.
Exactly...! Based on "circular evaluation".
> Fraidy-rat is unwilling to wager on his ability to show
> a positive result in a structured contest against the
> bots (even given a large degree of latitude in setting
> conditions such as match length, number of matches,
> and/or length of money session)
What do you mean "even given a large degree of latitude in
setting conditions"...?
Did I set those conditions...?? Hah hah... You guys are
something else... :))
Fine, why don't you let your whore mothers set the whatever
conditions then... (which I thought they had in the first
place).
> without applying a handicap based on the bots evaluation
> of his ability.
This is the only thing worth debating at this point.
> In addition Fraidy-rat seems unwilling to demonstrate his
> ability to beat the bots unless there is a wager involved.
> This seems strangely contradictory for someone that claims
> that the want to overturn bot play as their "gift to
> backgammon" and who says:
From the days of jellyshit, I never wanted compensation for
my time (and that's why I have spent umpteen hours of my
time to post in RGB)...
I have posted here hundreds of match files against jellyshit.
What did you cocksuckers do with them...? Have you learned
anything from them...??
No, of course you wouldn't, unless I backed up my "claims"
with money.
But then, when I offered to bet money you cocksuckers asked
me to spot points against jellyshit... :))
We have filmed the same scenario again and again. Now it's
some trash called "extreme gammon" or whatever...
Let me ask you, how long have you been following this newsgroup?
Initially, I was the one who volunteered to play against bots
here (most seriously against gnubg) for no money, and I would
have been the party who would invest a disproportionate amount
of time and effort compared to everyone else...!!
What did the mathshitting PHD scum like Chow did? They wanted
to bet for money...
In fact the cocksucker claimed that he had a millionaire friend
who would bet a hundred thousand dollars, etc. bullshit...
This is you! Motherfuckers! Look in the mirror before you
respond accusing me again...!!
And yes, along the way I realized that I should try to exploit
you sick gambler scums to make a few bucks also...
You need to realize that any argument on this issue cuts both
ways...!
To any cocksucking slime in here who argues that XGR+ is the
strongest player rated at 2210, I ask: "can you back it up
with money"...??
If not, shove it up your faggot ass and get lost... End of
discussion...!
MK
Bradley K. Sherman
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>
> ... End of
>discussion...!
>
One can only hope.
--bks
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
>strongest player rated at 2210, I ask: "can you back it up
>with money"...??
Sure. As soon as you, Mr. greedy 'Fraidy-rat coward, will agree to a fair
contest.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> > ... End of discussion...!
> One can only hope.
But don't hold your breath... $5 bg bot peddling cocksucking
scums will be back very soon, claiming that the bot is rated
2210 or whatever extraterrestrial rating... :))
But you will never get them to back up their claims with
money... :((
MK
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> > To any cocksucking slime in here who argues that
> > XGR+ is the strongest player rated at 2210, I ask:
> > "can you back it up with money"...??
> Sure. As soon as you, Mr. greedy 'Fraidy-rat coward,
> will agree to a fair contest.
First of all, look up the word "fair' in a dictionary.
My claim is that whoever are making claims that XGR+
or whatever other bg bot is rated at 2210 is a liar!
Furthermore, they are cocksucking small time swindlers
trying to peddle a piece of garbage bg bot for $5 or
%50, at the expense of unsuspecting beginners who are
just developing interest in backgammon...
Put your money where your claims are oozing out of or
fuck off already, eh...? :))
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>But don't hold your breath... $5 bg bot peddling cocksucking
>scums will be back very soon, claiming that the bot is rated
>2210 or whatever extraterrestrial rating... :))
>
>But you will never get them to back up their claims with
>money... :((
Certainly they will, 'Fraidy-rat. As soon as you agree to a fair contest.
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
O.K., I did.
>Put your money where your claims are oozing out of or
>fuck off already, eh...? :))
Sure. As soon as you agree to a fair contest.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >First of all, look up the word "fair' in a dictionary.
> O.K., I did.
Would you care to share with us what you have found...?
> >Put your money where your claims are oozing out of or
> >fuck off already, eh...? :))
> Sure. As soon as you agree to a fair contest.
I did offer you/Kazaros/XGR/et. al. a "fair" opportunity
to make a bet for the purpose of proving the claimed
strength of the bot you are all "peddling" here, if not
make money on top of it...!
Same offer goes to other blood sucking leeches who have
developed bg bots...
What about snowie, bgblitz, etc. etc...? Would any of
the cocsuckers who vouch for those bots dare to make a
fair money bet to stand behind their claims...??
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 11:17 am, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>
>> >First of all, look up the word "fair' in a dictionary.
>> O.K., I did.
>Would you care to share with us what you have found...?
fair (fer). adj. Free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or
deception, such as is practiced by 'Fraidy-rat.
muratk
> fair (fer). adj. Free from favoritism or
> self-interest or bias or deception, such
> as is practiced by 'Fraidy-rat.
So, why is it a problem for you to bet on
either opponent according to his/its odds
of winning?
They wouldn't allow a world-class bg player
in a beginners tournament, would they?
How about XGR+, would they allow it to play
in a beginners tournament?
XGR+ rates me a beginner... :) If the people
who developed it, who are vouching for it,
who are peddling it, had any integrity and
sense of fairness, they wouldn't shy away
from betting on it against me, in proportion
to what they (i.e. their product XGR+ claims)!
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that they
are swindling scumbag liars... :((
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
No bookie would take your word for it. Take part in real tournaments, get
a real rating, and then maybe we can use that as the basis for something.
Until then, 'Fraidy-rat, the fair thing to do is to battle on even terms.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >XGR+ rates me a beginner... :)
> No bookie would take your word for it. Take
> part in real tournaments, get a real rating,
> and then maybe we can use that as the basis
> for something.
> Until then, 'Fraidy-rat, the fair thing to
> do is to battle on even terms.
Not quite so math-phd moron...!
O never asked anybody to take my word for it
but to take the word of any piece of shit bg
bot of your choice...!
In a thread in RGB titled "An alternate offer",
I had said:
"So, how about an open ended "experiment"...?
".....
"At the end, we will derive the odds from
"gnudung's rating of me and itself, and
"multiply it by the preagreed stakes.
"That way you will know that my rating will
"be a real one and not a "sandbagged" one...
"How about it mathshitter(s) and his(their)
"millionaire friends...?? :))
Do you have enough brains to understand this prof?
And/or any brains left to remember the thread...??
Just substitute XGR+ for gnudung (until I come up
with a fitting name for that piece of shit robot).
Where did you buy your math phd again? And how
much did you pay for it...??
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Sure. It doesn't take any brains to understand that you're a greedy coward,
'Fraidy-rat.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >Do you have enough brains to understand this prof?
> Sure. It doesn't take any brains to understand
> that you're a greedy coward, 'Fraidy-rat.
That wasn't what I had meant but maybe you will
understand the following better...??
How about going back to betting on predicting a
bot's dice rolls...?
Is your cocsuking millionaire friend still around
to bet a couple of hundred thousands of dollars
against my predicting XGR+'s dice rolls...?
Oh, yes, on "even odds" of course...!! One to one!
How about the dude who developed XGR+...? Would
he want to join in on this...?
How about the Kazaros dude...? Would he want to
join in on this...?
It's ok if they can't bet as much as your faggot
millionaire friend... My time is cheap, I will
accommodate any of your ilks ;) From one dollar
to a hundred thousand dollars... But each side
has to show the money they are betting first... :)
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>How about going back to betting on predicting a
>bot's dice rolls...?
>
>Is your cocsuking millionaire friend still around
>to bet a couple of hundred thousands of dollars
>against my predicting XGR+'s dice rolls...?
>
>Oh, yes, on "even odds" of course...!! One to one!
Yes, provided you are able to guarantee a certain number of predictions.
For example, let's suppose the prediction is of the following form: You're
on the bar and need a 5 to enter. You predict: "I will not roll a direct 5
in the next three rolls." We bet even odds: If indeed you fail to roll a
direct 5 in the next three rolls (regardless of what happens in the game,
e.g., even if another point in the board opens up) then I pay you 1 unit,
but if you do roll at least one 5 then you pay me 1 unit.
If you can guarantee to make one thousand predictions of this form,
where you bet even odds that you will not roll a particular direct value
(combinations like 2 and 3 adding to 5 don't count) for the next three
rolls, then I believe I'll be able to find enough funding to bet $1000
per prediction (possibly more). But neither party has the option of
bowing out before the thousand predictions have been made.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >How about going back to betting on predicting a
> >bot's dice rolls...?
>
> >Is your cocsuking millionaire friend still around
> >to bet a couple of hundred thousands of dollars
> >against my predicting XGR+'s dice rolls...?
>
> >Oh, yes, on "even odds" of course...!! One to one!
>
> Yes, provided you are able to guarantee a certain
> number of predictions.
That's fine. We can say that I will make a total of
100 predictions but what good would that do to you?
What really should matter is how much total money I
will be betting. I may make many small bets or fewer
large bets. How would that matter to you...?
> For example, let's suppose the prediction is of the
> following form: You're on the bar and need a 5 to
> enter. You predict: "I will not roll a direct 5 in
> the next three rolls." We bet even odds: If indeed
> you fail to roll a direct 5 in the next three rolls
> (regardless of what happens in the game,(e.g., even
> if another point in the board opens up) then I pay
> you 1 unit, but if you do roll at least one 5 then
> you pay me 1 unit.
Are you trying to be funny or am I not understanding
you...?
If I make a prediction that has 50%, or one in two,
chance of happening, then we each will pay 1 unit. :)
If I make a prediction that has nine in ten chances of
happening, you will pay 9 units and I will pay 10 units.
If I make a prediction that has one in two hundred chances
of happening, you will pay 200 units and I will pay 1 unit.
> If you can guarantee to make one thousand predictions of
> this form, where you bet even odds
With the understanding that "even odds' mean each side
will have an equal chance of winning, (i.e. bets may be
of multiple units with each side paying by the same unit,
unlike the idea of betting in single units but adjusting
each sides unit in proportion to ratings of players, etc).
> that you will not roll a particular direct value
> (combinations like 2 and 3 adding to 5 don't count)
> for the next three rolls,
Why not...? I should be able to make any kinds of simple
or compound predictions. After all, I will win or lose
in proportion to the likelihood of my prediction coming
true.
> then I believe I'll be able to find enough funding to
> bet $1000 per prediction (possibly more). But neither
> party has the option of bowing out before the thousand
> predictions have been made.
Again, since you can't control the size of my bets, the
number of bets is not as significant as total amount of
money each side commits.
And with that, either side just might run out of money
in only a few large bets... ;)
Let me clarify one last time so that you won't get
yourself into deep shit :)
I will make predictions like "I bet $100 that Player-A
will roll 2 sixes before Player-B rolls 1 six". I won't
even have to specify how many rolls. When the prediction
fails or succeeds, we will count how many chances of
rolling a six each side had after how many rolls, then
we will multiply it by $100 and we will pay each other
accordingly.
If it works out that it was one in hundred twenty four
chances for my prediction to come true; if it doesn't
come true, I will pay you $100, if it does come true,
your millionaire friend will pay me $12,000...
Of course if the chances of my prediction coming true
were the other way around, I would pay you $12,000 vs
your $100.
Deal...?
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>That's fine. We can say that I will make a total of
>100 predictions but what good would that do to you?
>
>What really should matter is how much total money I
>will be betting. I may make many small bets or fewer
>large bets. How would that matter to you...?
I said 1000 predictions at $1000 per prediction.
>If I make a prediction that has 50%, or one in two,
>chance of happening, then we each will pay 1 unit. :)
[etc.]
There is a saying that one should never attribute to malice what one can
attribute to stupidity. I'm beginning to think that you genuinely are
clueless about how betting works and are not just trying to hustle people.
Go to any casino. Do they offer you "fair odds" in the sense that you are
asking for? Of course not. The house is there to make money. It works
out the odds according to mathshitting formulas and then tips things
slightly in its favor. Or go to any bookie. Suppose there is a match
between two players and they are judged to be exactly equal in strength.
Do the bookies offer you 1 to 1 odds on either player? Of course not.
They tip the odds so that if you were to bet on both players, you would
be sure to lose money.
The offer I'm setting up will net you $1 million if you make all 1000
predictions correctly. Am I going to do so according to your suggestion?
Of course not. I'm going to calculate, according to my mathshitting
formulas, odds that I think will make me money. If you think that my
mathshitting formulas are nonsense and that you can predict gnubg's cheating
behavior very accurately, then you should jump at the chance being offered
here. You just have to predict gnubg's behavior slightly better than I
think you can to make a killing. So why aren't you jumping at the chance?
The answer is obvious: You're just a greedy coward, Fraidy-rat. End of
story.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >That's fine. We can say that I will make a total of
> >100 predictions but what good would that do to you?
>
> >What really should matter is how much total money I
> >will be betting. I may make many small bets or fewer
> >large bets. How would that matter to you...?
>
> I said 1000 predictions at $1000 per prediction.
What are we predicting here? Coin tosses or dice rolls?
You know, if you really push me to it, I can shove your
concept of betting on predicting dice rolls up the cunt
of your whore mother, by simply basing my bets on 50-50
(as as possibly close to it) situations...
Of course I may have to play 4 billion games in order
to make such 1000 predictions, but I have time if your
mother has also... ;)
> Go to any casino. Do they offer you "fair odds" in
> the sense that you are asking for? Of course not.
> The house is there to make money. It works out the
> odds according to mathshitting formulas and then tips
> things slightly in its favor.
Didn't we already go through this just recently...?
A casino invests in land, buildings, machines, carpets,
waitresses, electricity bill, etc...
Not only that you yourself (including your millionaire
faggot friend) are not "the house", when was it the last
time that any "house" hired and paid you four your
mathshitting services...??
> Or go to any bookie. Suppose there is a match between
> two players and they are judged to be exactly equal in
> strength. Do the bookies offer you 1 to 1 odds on either
> player? Of course not.
In this case, you are no bookie either. Get your faggot
millionaire friend to tie up 1000x$1,000 (i.e. a million
of dollars) in an escrow account before you open your
mouth again...!
> The offer I'm setting up will net you $1 million if you
> make all 1000 predictions correctly.
Fine, it will take us all a very very long time for me
to recognize 50%-50% situations and make 1,000 bets...
But, like I said, if you are a gaping ass-hole, I will
oblige one way or another... :))
> Am I going to do so according to your suggestion?
Not quite but you are such a scum that who cares... ;)
> Of course not. I'm going to calculate, according to
> my mathshitting formulas, odds that I think will make
> me money. If you think that my mathshitting formulas
> are nonsense and that you can predict gnubg's cheating
> behavior very accurately, then you should jump at the
> chance being offered here.
Ok, fine I will jump on it if you have long enough time.
But, what is this going back to gnubg shit...? Weren't
we talking about the "world most strongest bg bot", the
one and only "XGR+"...??
What happened? Did the guy who programmed XGR+ or Neil
Kazaros advise you to not bet money on the cheating
piece of scum (or them plural)...?
I would like to stick with XGR+ now, if you would
please... ;)
> You just have to predict gnubg's behavior slightly
> better than I think you can to make a killing. So
> why aren't you jumping at the chance?
You mean I and gnubg will toss coins...?? Hah hah :)
You are a really despicable being... :(
> The answer is obvious: You're just a greedy coward,
> Fraidy-rat. End of story.
I doubt it. You will have nightmares about me for
the rest of your cocksucking life... :)))
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>On Jun 27, 9:04 pm, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>> I said 1000 predictions at $1000 per prediction.
>
>What are we predicting here? Coin tosses or dice rolls?
Do you actually read what I write? I explained in great detail exactly what
the prediction was. I'm not going to re-type it all just because you're too
lazy to read what I write the first time around.
>In this case, you are no bookie either. Get your faggot
>millionaire friend to tie up 1000x$1,000 (i.e. a million
>of dollars) in an escrow account before you open your
>mouth again...!
You're the one who started offering the bet. You should be the one to tie
up a million dollars in the escrow account. Of course, I know you'll never
do that since you're such a greedy coward, Fraidy-rat.
>But, what is this going back to gnubg shit...? Weren't
>we talking about the "world most strongest bg bot", the
>one and only "XGR+"...??
Sorry, I meant XGR+.
>What happened? Did the guy who programmed XGR+ or Neil
>Kazaros advise you to not bet money on the cheating
>piece of scum (or them plural)...?
Neil never wrote back to me. I haven't communicated with Xavier.
>I doubt it. You will have nightmares about me for
>the rest of your cocksucking life... :)))
Nightmares? You mean sweet dreams.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 9:04 pm, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
> >> I said 1000 predictions at $1000 per prediction.
> >What are we predicting here? Coin tosses or dice rolls?
> Do you actually read what I write?
Surely, I do... But am I expected to understand all of
your cocksucking nonsense...?
> >In this case, you are no bookie either. Get your faggot
> >millionaire friend to tie up 1000x$1,000 (i.e. a million
> >of dollars) in an escrow account before you open your
> >mouth again...!
> You're the one who started offering the bet.
And do you cocksucking slime even remember what my original
bet was...??
> You should be the one to tie up a million dollars in the
> escrow account. Of course, I know you'll never do that
> since you're such a greedy coward, Fraidy-rat.
I don't have a million dollars and I don't have a faggot
millionaire friend either...
Just so that your whore mother can be proud of his math phd
son and his memory, my original bet didn't involve money..!
> >But, what is this going back to gnubg shit...? Weren't
> >we talking about the "world most strongest bg bot", the
> >one and only "XGR+"...??
> Sorry, I meant XGR+.
Good.
> >What happened? Did the guy who programmed XGR+ or Neil
> >Kazaros advise you to not bet money on the cheating
> >piece of scum (or them plural)...?
> Neil never wrote back to me. I haven't communicated
> with Xavier.
Hah hah... You are willing to bet a million dollars on
a bg bot and you haven't even talked to the person who
programmed it...?
Maybe you should, eh...? And, indeed, why don't you?
Maybe he would like to side-bet... :)))
How about Kazarus? He doesn't even want to side-bet in
such a sure money making opportunity...?? :))
> >I doubt it. You will have nightmares about me for
> >the rest of your cocksucking life... :)))
> Nightmares? You mean sweet dreams.
No, I meant and mean "nightmares"... (not just for you
but for all of your ilk...!! You and they know what I
mean... ;)
MK
muratk
> >What happened? Did the guy who programmed XGR+ or Neil
> >Kazaros advise you to not bet money on the cheating
> >piece of scum (or them plural)...?
> Neil never wrote back to me. I haven't communicated
> with Xavier.
Has Neil wrote bak to you yet...?
Have you communicated with Xavier yet...?
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
No, of course not.
>Have you communicated with Xavier yet...?
No, of course not.
In the course of this discussion it has become clear once again that you
aren't actually willing to bet any real money so I'm not going to waste
any more time on you, Fraidy-rat.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>
>>Has Neil wrote bak to you yet...?
>
> No, of course not.
>
>>Have you communicated with Xavier yet...?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> In the course of this discussion it has become
> clear once again that you aren't actually willing
> to bet any real money so I'm not going to waste
> any more time on you, Fraidy-rat.
To the contrary, I am willing to bet "real money"
while you are ridiculing yourself offering to bet
1,000x$1,000=$1,0000,000 which neither you nor your
imaginary cocksucking millionaire friend have... :)
In addition, you want me to bet $1,000 against your
$1,000 even if the odds of my prediction coming true
may be 1 in 2, 1 in 36 or 1 in 400... :))
On top of that, you want to be considered to be the
"house" or the "bookie" and take a percentage of the
bets... :)))
Ha ha ha, thrice...!! :)))
You cocksucking slimes name the stakes and put at
least something like 36,000 times that amount in an
escrow account (just in case I make 1,000 predictions
with an average of 1 in 36 chances of coming true).
Then and only then you can open your mouth and talk
again on this issue...
If XGR+ is not rigged, then I will be proportionately
right (or wrong) in predicting its dice rolls and we
both will come out even after 1,000 predictions.
But you all will have a bonus to gain from it.
That is, if my predictions fall within a pre-agreed
error rate in 1,000 trials, I, "Murat", will personally
sign a certificate stating my conclusion that neither
Xavier, Neil nor you are cocksucking scums involved in
developing, promoting and peddling cheating bg bots... :)
Even more, I will agree to splitting any advertising
and publishing revenues of such an event... ;)
So, what do you guys say...? (But this time, do make
sure to consult with Xavier and Neil, (besides your
millionaire faggot friend), before you post your
decisions here and throw away such a chance for them).
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
I'll believe it after you set up the escrow account and deposit money in it.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>
>>To the contrary, I am willing to bet "real money"
>
> I'll believe it after you set up the escrow account
> and deposit money in it.
I'll be glad to deposit $1,000 right tomorrow if you
promise to deposit, let's say $35,000, the next day
(based on that I will not bet on anything less than
1 in 36 odds, i.e. specific doubles)...
We can go either for 1,000 bets (which will make it
a long process of low bets) or until one side runs
out of money (which I would prefer). In other words,
if I bet on "three doubles greater than 44 during
the next six rolls", one side may run out of money
before 1,000 bets...
Just confirm the last petty details and we can go
forward with it ;)
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
That's chump change. Given how uncooperative and absurd your behavior has
been so far, $1000 isn't worth my time. Put down $100000 and then we can
start talking again.
muratk
> muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>
>> I'll be glad to deposit $1,000 right tomorrow
>
> That's chump change. Given how uncooperative
> and absurd your behavior has been so far, $1000
> isn't worth my time. Put down $100000 and then
> we can start talking again.
Life may be too short to even take backgammon too
seriously, so I will respond to you for amusement.
You know, in a way, you are right. If you were
betting $1,000 against my $35,0000 I probably
wouldn't bothered with it either...
But before I go on to raise and deposit $100,000
in an escrow account, I would like to make sure
that you can counter by depositing $3,500,000 in
an escrow account the next day...?
You are just a cocksucking scum (along with your
imaginary millionaire faggot friend)... :)
This is getting so bad that I am starting to feel
guilty for letting you demean yourself even more.
Please stop demeaning yourself... :))
MK
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
muratk <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 9:45 am, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>
>
>But before I go on to raise and deposit $100,000
>in an escrow account, I would like to make sure
>that you can counter by depositing $3,500,000 in
>an escrow account the next day...?
Not the next day, but probably within the next month.
muratk
>>On Jul 16, 9:45 am, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>
> Not the next day, but probably within the next month.
Ok, well, it's summer and I have other things to do.
So, I'll give you a couple months extra. Come back
around October-November...? ;)
Oh, also, I have been trying to use endearing terms
generously to see who may still be "googling" me... :))
Only take half of it personally :)
The rest is for them ;)
MK