vpFREE2 Forums

Bob D's no brainer at Palms

#1

What a jerk to respond like this. All this person did was ask a simple question which was probably on the minds of a lot of people who took the time to read the article. It is a question that given the circumstances of a story about playing in a tournament that would be on one’s mind after reading the article. You didn’t have to respond in such a manner.

In a message dated 8/27/2014 5:29:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, vpF…@…com writes:

···

I also found the article very interesting, but the ending was missing - did he or Bonnie win anything in the tournament after all that effort?

The short answer is no, neither one of us won anything (other than me winning the $1 from her in side bets that I “forgot” to collect) although I did talk a host into a $25 lunch comp.

The longer answer is, “why do you even care?” Even if you found out I won $1,000, what would that tell you? You still wouldn’t know my year-to-date score within $50,000. You wouldn’t know my net worth within $1 million. You wouldn’t know whether I won or lost $100, $1000, $10,000, $100,000 later that weekend. So if my wealth/bankroll before the event was a big unknown to you, which it was, (big unknown + $1,000) is still a big unknown.

Had I won, it wouldn’t have made it a better play. Even though I lost didn’t mean it was a bad play. Whether a play is good or bad depends on the information available BEFORE you actually make the gamble. And as I argued in the article, thi s was a good low-roller gamble.

Bob

#2

Agreed! I think I will just follow Bob’s other advice to not read his column. Great strategy for a writer :wink:

#3

Maybe I’ve grown a thick skin after 30 years of east coast living (certainly I have more than a few callouses these days) … but Bob’s reply, while emphatic, was fully respectful.

“Why do you care?” can be an obnoxious response to a question, in some circumstances. But I see Bob’s point being that whether he came away a winner was the last thing someone would find beneficial in his column – he writes to inform and his column had a particular focus (which wasn’t the tournament outcome).

I had an aunt Naomi who frequently was dissatisfied by television movies. If a story featured a couple, the wife pregnant with a baby (incidental to the main story line), even if the primary plot line was satisfied in the end she’d pout if the pregnancy wasn’t carried to term during the movie.

Were Bob the writer in that case, I suspect he wouldn’t be terribly concerned with Naomi’s disappointment.

—In vpF…@…com, <der145@…> wrote :

What a jerk to respond like this. All this person did was ask a
simple question which was probably on the minds of a lot of people who took
the time to read the article. It is a question that given the
circumstances of a story about playing in a tournament that would be on one’s
mind after reading the article. You didn’t have to respond in such a
manner.

In a message dated 8/27/2014 5:29:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vpF…@…com writes:

···

I also found the article very interesting, but the ending was
missing - did he or Bonnie win anything in the tournament after all that
effort?

The short answer is no, neither one of us won anything (other than me
winning the $1 from her in side bets that I “forgot” to collect) although I
did talk a host into a $25 lunch comp.

The longer answer is, “why do
you even care?” Even if you found out I won $1,000, what would that tell you?
You still wouldn’t know my year-to-date score within $50,000. You wouldn’t
know my net worth within $1 million. You wouldn’t know whether I won or lost
$100, $1000, $10,000, $100,000 later that weekend. So if my wealth/bankroll
before the event was a big unknown to you, which it was, (big unknown +
$1,000) is still a big unknown.

Had I won, it wouldn’t have made it a
better play. Even though I lost didn’t mean it was a bad play. Whether a play
is good or bad depends on the information available BEFORE you actually make
the gamble. And as I argued in the article, thi s was a good low-roller
gamble.

Bob

#4

I agree with Harry. Bob used the “Why do you care?” question to illustrate the important point that the outcome has nothing to do with whether a play was a good bet. I found the tone of the response to be matter-of-fact, and not obnoxious in the least.

–Dunbar

—In vpF…@…com, <harry.porter@…> wrote :

Maybe I’ve grown a thick skin after 30 years of east coast living (certainly I have more than a few callouses these days) … but Bob’s reply, while emphatic, was fully respectful.

“Why do you care?” can be an obnoxious response to a question, in some circumstances. But I see Bob’s point being that whether he came away a winner was the last thing someone would find beneficial in his column – he writes to inform and his column had a particular focus (which wasn’t the tournament outcome).

…

···
#5

In my first note regarding the column I mentioned that the results were irrelevant. In his reply to the other post where he says why do you care. I thought it would be obvious why people care and that is why I made my patronizing response. Like I also said in that post it was not germane to the article to mention that he was in the tournament. One could make all the relevant points without mentioning that you were entered in the tournament.

I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that if he had won he would have mentioned it.

A.P.

···

From: “harry.por…@…net [vpFREE]” <vpF…@…com>
To: vpF…@…com
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:41:36 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob D’s no brainer at Palms

Maybe I’ve grown a thick skin after 30 years of east coast living (certainly I have more than a few callouses these days) … but Bob’s reply, while emphatic, was fully respectful.

“Why do you care?” can be an obnoxious response to a question, in some circumstances. But I see Bob’s point being that whether he came away a winner was the last thing someone would find beneficial in his column – he writes to inform and his column had a particular focus (which wasn’t the tournament outcome).

I had an aunt Naomi who frequently was dissatisfied by television movies. If a story featured a couple, the wife pregnant with a baby (incidental to the main story line), even if the primary plot line was satisfied in the end she’d pout if the pregnancy wasn’t carried to term during the movie.

Were Bob the writer in that case, I suspect he wouldn’t be
terribly concerned with Naomi’s disappointment.

—In vpF…@…com, <der145@…> wrote :

What a jerk to respond like this. All this person did was ask a
simple question which was probably on the minds of a lot of people who took
the time to read the article. It is a question that given the
circumstances of a story about playing in a tournament that would be on one’s
mind after reading the article. You didn’t have to respond in such a
manner.

In a message dated 8/27/2014 5:29:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vpF…@…com writes:

I also found the article very interesting, but the ending was
missing - did he or Bonnie win anything in the tournament after all that
effort?

The short answer is no, neither one of us won anything (other than me
winning the $1 from her in side bets that I “forgot” to collect) although I
did talk a host into a $25 lunch comp.

The longer answer is, “why do
you even care?” Even if you found out I won $1,000, what would that tell you?
You still wouldn’t know my year-to-date score within $50,000. You wouldn’t
know my net worth within $1 million. You wouldn’t know whether I won or lost
$100, $1000, $10,000, $100,000 later that weekend. So if my wealth/bankroll
before the event was a big unknown to you, which it was, (big unknown +
$1,000) is still a big unknown.

Had I won, it wouldn’t have made it a
better play. Even though I lost didn’t mean it was a bad play. Whether a play
is good or bad depends on the information available BEFORE you actually make
the gamble. And as I argued in the article, thi s was a good low-roller
gamble.

Bob

#6

IMO, there was clear informational value in Bob’s posting that he was in the tournament. If you’re in the tournament, you are in a position to verify that the tournament was run as advertised.

You might argue that an analysis doesn’t depend on whether the tournament actually happened, but I’m going to be much more interested in an analysis if it applies to a real situation that either has happened or I think is about to happen.

–Dunbar

—In vpF…@…com, <ehpee@…> wrote :

In my first note regarding the column I mentioned that the results were irrelevant. In his reply to the other post where he says why do you care. I thought it would be obvious why people care and that is why I made my patronizing response. Like I also said in that post it was not germane to the article to mention that he was in the tournament. One could make all the relevant points without mentioning that you were entered in the tournament.

I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that if he had won he would have mentioned it.

A.P.