Quote:
What you were trying to say and what you said are different. I gather now what you meant to say overall. That’s fine.
I don’t want to get into a big discussion about this and derail the thread. But you contribute to LLSNL, so I’ll explain to you, so you know:
You said “When do you settle? Daily? If so he’s either an idiot or planning to scam you somehow.”
Stated another way:
Premise: You settle daily.
Conclusion: He’s and idiot or it’s a scam.
That is not a logical statement. Even if you add (the red herrings of) the reasons you stated why it might be a scam, it wouldn’t be logical statement.
Premise: You settle daily.
Argument: It looks too good to be true. The deal incentives abnormal play and is vulnerable to collusion.
Conclusion: He’s an idiot or it’s a scam.
Those are arguments for it to be a scam, sure. They are just not arguments that if you settle daily one can conclude it’s a scam.
P.s. I know your question “Is that different from what I said.” Refers to the other statements you and I wrote. I didn’t want to get into explaining that too but I can. The OP isn’t even interested in our comments.
Perhaps my argument has not been argued very well to this point. I don’t really care to logically deconstruct arguments in such an informal setting, so let me reiterate as simply and clearly as I can.
The deal as it is stated and settling daily is not profitable for the host to offer OP. Now, there are so many variables that this isn’t really provable either way, but this is the opinion I hold.
If I am correct, then the host is either not acting in his own best interest or he doesn’t intend to honor the deal in a fair game.
If OP trusts this guy he absolutely should take the deal, but please proceed with skepticism.
