The War Room Bet Thread V3

[Lead]

@Lead, was the wai/Proko bet ever made official? If so, I have priority if wai loses that one, right?

Wai/Proko never became official. The window was too short and also, Wai way overextended on signature bets to make another 1 year one.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wai/Proko never became official. The window was too short and also, Wai way overextended on signature bets to make another 1 year one.

Got it, thanks. Looks like he would have lost that one, though it'll be close.

@Prokofievian

 

[waiguoren]

Got it, thanks. Looks like he would have lost that one, though it'll be close.

@Prokofievian

RCP has CA25 called for Hill now. I'm guessing AP called it? Anyway, I'll concede. Welcome to my sig. I saw your PM, BTW, will respond when I have more time.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

RCP has CA25 called for Hill now. I'm guessing AP called it? Anyway, I'll concede. Welcome to my sig. I saw your PM, BTW, will respond when I have more time.

If I'm Jack, for your sig I'd go for something like "Waigu's beef overrated, Jack's superiority questioned only by fools such as myself.".

 

[Lead]

RCP has CA25 called for Hill now. I'm guessing AP called it? Anyway, I'll concede. Welcome to my sig. I saw your PM, BTW, will respond when I have more time.

#37. @waiguoren v. @Jack V Savage
1. Democrat Katie Hill will defeat Republican Steve Knight in the 2018 House of Representatives race for California's 25th Congressional district.
2. Jack V Savage for, waiguoren against
3. When the California Secretary of State certifies the results of the 2018 Congressional elections.
4. Sig bet
5. 3 months
Winner: Jack V Savage

 

[Limbo Pete]

#37. @waiguoren v. @Jack V Savage
1. Democrat Katie Hill will defeat Republican Steve Knight in the 2018 House of Representatives race for California's 25th Congressional district.
2. Jack V Savage for, waiguoren against
3. When the California Secretary of State certifies the results of the 2018 Congressional elections.
4. Sig bet
5. 3 months
Winner: Jack V Savage

I have been waiting eagerly for this moment ever since I became aware of the betting thread.

 

[Fawlty]

Hespect for conceding in reasonable time instead of dragging it out.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Brah, you need a Hawaiian vacation.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Brah, you need a Hawaiian vacation.

Oh i'm coming that way sooner or later, and i'll be hitting you up when I do if it's at all possible

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh i'm coming that way sooner or later, and i'll be hitting you up when I do if it's at all possible

Hospitality extended. @HomeCheese will attest.

Not hitting me up is like a mortal wound.

 

[Prokofievian]

Got it, thanks. Looks like he would have lost that one, though it'll be close.

@Prokofievian

It was my impression that the bet was ratified by both me and @waiguoren. I liked his acceptance of my terms. But, there are 11 outstanding seats yet, so it's a coin flip: first to 6 wins.

 

[m52nickerson]

Correction: I am 2-1 against Silver. In my bet with @m52nickerson I defeated Silver in two separate contests.

Sad your trying to give yourself extra wins.

 

[Lead]

It was my impression that the bet was ratified by both me and @waiguoren. I liked his acceptance of my terms. But, there are 11 outstanding seats yet, so it's a coin flip: first to 6 wins.

This thread is so people can assign an arbiter and officially record the bets they make. When I say the bet wasn't made, I'm simply stating it in the context of how this thread is run. It's completely possible you and wai came to an agreement one on one. I just won't be enforcing any of that as it's between the two of you to sort out.

 

[MikeMcMann]

@SBJJ and I are entering into a bet. I have never done one here and only recently found out about this thread so hopefully I do it right.

The issue of the bet is:

- Will the CNN lawsuit against the White House and Trump to re-establish access for Jim Acosta to the White House press conferences be successful.

I say yes it will. He says no it will not.

We agree that if it is dropped, or Settled, or does not go to final Court decision the bet is a push and only a Court Ruling decides the bet.

the bet is a 3 month Av and Sig bet where the other gets control of the others within the only limit being the Sherdog forum rules.

If SBJJ has any restrictions on time frame via other bets he may have that could impact me taking control of his Av and Sig (because another better might have control) he must disclose those first and I must then accept those limitations for the bet to finalized. Otherwise if he acknowledges the bet is on, then this is my acknowledgement it is on.

I hope this is enough??

 

[SBJJ]

@SBJJ and I are entering into a bet. I have never done one here and only recently found out about this thread so hopefully I do it right.

The issue of the bet is:

- Will the CNN lawsuit against the White House and Trump to re-establish access for Jim Acosta to the White House press conferences be successful.

I say yes it will. He says no it will not.

We agree that if it is dropped, or Settled, or does not go to final Court decision the bet is a push and only a Court Ruling decides the bet.

the bet is a 3 month Av and Sig bet where the other gets control of the others within the only limit being the Sherdog forum rules.

If SBJJ has any restrictions on time frame via other bets he may have that could impact me taking control of his Av and Sig (because another better might have control) he must disclose those first and I must then accept those limitations for the bet to finalized. Otherwise if he acknowledges the bet is on, then this is my acknowledgement it is on.

I hope this is enough??

I'm up for it. But this will be settled by the final court it goes to

Also, this is for Acosta only. Ruling MUST be for ACOSTA to be reinstated with credentials

Also, if CNN drops the suit and sends in another reporter I think that should count as a loss

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm up for it. But this will be settled by the final court it goes to

What do you mean by this? Are you saying if the first court rules Acosta is out but a subsequent appelate court rules that was in error and over turns it, you win?

I would not agree with that. The FINAL ruling is what determines this.

Also, this is for Acosta only. Ruling MUST be for ACOSTA to be reinstated with credentials

Agreed, but with a caveat.

If the court does not speak to Acosta specifically but more likely speaks to a process where the White House then has no choice but to re-instate Acosta, I still win.

Meaning if they rule 'the White House or Potus can ban no individual accept under these specific circumstances' and that ruling FORCES them to re-instate Acosta, I win. No loop hole escapes if they address this issue in the general sense (for all future reporters) instead of the specific if the general ruling applies to Acosta and the WH is then forced to allow him to attend.

Also, if CNN drops the suit and sends in another reporter I think that should count as a loss

What?

Well then if the WH drops the case and settles and allows Acosta back in, while pretending they are only doing so as a nice gesture (as i outlined already in the other thread what I expect them to do and why it won't go to court) then I should win.

I was trying to avoid these more vague things but I am good in adding those two if you are as I am pretty sure the WH won't allow this in court and take that loss.

 

[SBJJ]

What do you mean by this? Are you saying if the first court rules Acosta is out but a subsequent appelate court rules that was in error and over turns it, you win?

I would not agree with that. The FINAL ruling is what determines this.


Agreed, but with a caveat.

If the court does not speak to Acosta specifically but more likely speaks to a process where the White House then has no choice but to re-instate Acosta, I still win.

Meaning if they rule 'the White House or Potus can ban no individual accept under these specific circumstances' and that ruling FORCES them to re-instate Acosta, I win. No loop hole escapes if they address this issue in the general sense (for all future reporters) instead of the specific if the general ruling applies to Acosta and the WH is then forced to allow him to attend.





What?

Well then if the WH drops the case and settles and allows Acosta back in, while pretending they are only doing so as a nice gesture (as i outlined already in the other thread what I expect them to do and why it won't go to court) then I should win.

I was trying to avoid these more vague things but I am good in adding those two if you are as I am pretty sure the WH won't allow this in court and take that loss.

Jesus. The WH can not drop the case. Its not them filing suit

Your initial assertion was CNN would win this in court. Its already filed.

The WH has not stated Acosta is banned forever. If they decide later to reinstate him outside of the court issuing it that is not a loss

If you can't back up your initial chest thumping prediction in the thread that's not my problem

 

[MikeMcMann]

Jesus. The WH can not drop the case. Its not them filing suit

Your initial assertion was CNN would win this in court. Its already filed.

The WH has not stated Acosta is banned forever. If they decide later to reinstate him outside of the court issuing it that is not a loss

If you can't back up your initial chest thumping prediction in the thread that's not my problem

haha trying to duck already eh. You read @panamaican post no doubt.

You are correct that the WH cannot 'drop the case'. That was technical error on my part. It should have read 'it the WH settles the case' giving Acosta back his pass with nothing changing but they simply use rhetoric claiming they won or were right, that I would win.

I want that added in as I said long before you and i even discussed this bet as the most likely outcome and if you are going to CHANGE the bet that you win if CNN drops it, then I should win if the WH settles it before ti goes to court by giving Jim his pass back. Of course that is a win for me, as it is a concession by the WH they were wrong even if they won't say it.

You like to brag about your betting cred here and that will be lost if tuck tail now and run from a bet you already agreed to.

 

[Lead]

@MikeMcMann

Looks like you two are still hashing out the bet but when ready, use this formatting to get the final approval

1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.

 

[SBJJ]

haha trying to duck already eh. You read @panamaican post no doubt.

You are correct that the WH cannot 'drop the case'. That was technical error on my part. It should have read 'it the WH settles the case' giving Acosta back his pass with nothing changing but they simply use rhetoric claiming they won or were right, that I would win.

I want that added in as I said long before you and i even discussed this bet as the most likely outcome and if you are going to CHANGE the bet that you win if CNN drops it, then I should win if the WH settles it before ti goes to court by giving Jim his pass back. Of course that is a win for me, as it is a concession by the WH they were wrong even if they won't say it.

You like to brag about your betting cred here and that will be lost if tuck tail now and run from a bet you already agreed to.

Jesus Christ dude. How can anyone have a bet with you when all you do is change shit

I mean it's damn near impossible to even decipher what you are saying.

You went from you KNEW CNN/ACOSTA would win in court to all the BS you are posting now

Plain and simple. CNN wins in court(highest court after any appeals) you win. If they do not win(Acosta not reinstated by the court) you lose

Stop bitching out of your original claim. And stop posting the same BS over and over in the bet room to camouflage you changing your predictions/bets

I've always been more than fair with those I bet with. But I'm not going to continue to indulge you when you are not working in good faith

CNN wins in court/you win
CNN does not win/I win