I mean to be honest I think I would have continued betting against most people, but to think of all the times I turned to this thread to see.. garbage, worthless posts; idiocy...Pathetic memes, plus the fact you tried to insult me above
I had no problem in getting my $ back

And anyone taking issue with that can PM me. I'm fed up of people calling each other out, (/coughing) etc.

Completely irrelevant.

Weren't you the first one to take a jab at jdawg?

says the no good welcher

If you could get an award for being a reaaaaaally bad forum poster then you'd probably not win that. You're good. Keep it up.

fairly certain that there was heaps of pics being thrown itt, and it was mostly fun and games (if you notice, drybes and i have both said no hard feelings). Oh and fwiw, you took the first jab at me.

its fine though, you were clearly able to take your bet back and you did; I haven't said one negative thing to anyone that has done that

[x] no one cares.

It's over and done with. You took your bet back leave it at that and walk away.

I didn't really though, I said something about a grinder having no life, I was half thinking about myself and whether the long hours in poker are worth it

I wouldn't open this thread to attempt to hate on you, i'd come in for a sweat for my bet. And all i'd see is this garbage where you and iampro have memesex.

You can still take a shot at me you know. You might be embarrassed after this whole underage debacle but the bustos still love you.

Pretty sure I just said that I wasn't taking "shots" at anyone? Are you delusional?

Oh and fwiw, a ton of people posting ITT in my favor aren't bustos, they're fellow backers. We're a pretty tight nit community; I know you wouldn't know about that since you don't back a number of players at a time (or any, I don't know).

Oh and I'm done posting back to anything not related about the completion of the prop; as everything that has happened has happened, and we're all ready to move on.

chilll winstonnnn

just fyi, panayot (i have him listed as a 180 turbo reg) binked the sunady 1/4 mil for 27k outright today, mbn!

gl for the rest of this

i think uve been pretty damn good about it all tbh. ne1 who took there bets bak is angling imo and should be treated accordingly. ill fkn say it for those that wont. i couldve taken my bet back, i didnt because i think its pretty clearly the wrong thing to do. u will clearly finish the bet and enjoy my money however having a sense of right and wrong is pretty important in life. for those that took there bets bak (and i know all of u took it bak because u could and it was obv ud lose, not because the prev accounts made a huge diff to u putting on the bet in the 1st place) ur all BAD PPL. U NO SENSE OF HONOR, jst because u have the option to withdraw from this bet and its clearly +ev to do so, doesnt make it right. gg

its a shame that money>honour for most people.
I like your motivation Jdawg, dont let the haters slow you down

Didnt read through this thread but if cliffs are that the bet is void cuz op had other accounts at one point that is just rediculous. Whoever was the judge should never judge anything again.

Bet is not void. Judge found some information about OP having previous multiple accounts when he was underage and disclosed this information to the bettors and gave them the option of withdrawing their bets if they wanted to. The has continued for those that still confirmed their action.

Any updated stats for this?

u are welcome to post ur opinion here. here is mine:


first, the ref always has the ****** part. since noone following a thread is objective, there is a huge probability there are people complaining about a ref´s decision. since none of the participiants complained about the call, it should be ok. josh does not feel like he has a disadvantage he did not deserve to get, nor do the bettors feel scammed in any way since they had the choice to void the bet. the crowd yells tho.

if i would ever be asked to judge in a bet, what thread would come in my mind, the one noone speeks about the judge in or this one?


i am not in the bettors shoes (do u claim u are?). i seen many situations i disagreed with friends, refs or opponents about random decisions. i don´t think i was on the "right" side significantly more often than 50% of the times (do u claim u are?).

josh played 16k games instead of 10k prior to a 6k-games volume bet. noone with a brain can state this is not an issue. now how big the influence on a decision by a bettor really is can be judged by the bettor only. he is not a ref, he is a bettor, so he is neither supposed nor able to be objective.

questioning Drybes´ and others rep based on what decision he takes here is just ridiculous. i am not in his shoes, and i have no reason to think he was "angling" by doing exactly what he was supposed to do by a ref call. his betting might have been a close decision, and he knows best what choice to take. gamblers are supposed to follow the rules, imo he did.

people not involved in the bet who insult him or anyone because of their decisions according to a ref call, imo, are nothing else than stalking attention whores. u act like u own truth on an issue u are not involved in. based on ur behavior itt u should not use the term "spirit of the bet".

gl josh ur a sicko!

This is a terrible analogy.

Most people are not insulting the judge. They are questioning his judgment/logic. Nobody is questioning his reputation. "Stalking attention whores" though, lol.

yepp, saved first and then re-read it and deleted before reading ur post.

what do u think about the rest?

referring to Drybes "decisions according to a ref call" obv, don´t claim the ref was insulted.

Meh, I don't really want to continue to beat a dead horse that is this discussion on what has happened. It's been resolved, about as best as it can be. People have voiced their opinions, some more nicely than others. Nothing left to discuss at this point.

Oh, ok

Here are 2 more cents that probably nobody cares about.

Obvoiously at least one multi-account involved here was a clear violation of Stars' TOS, underage play under false ID obtained from parents. Could (would) Stars ban Josh's current account if they elected to look into this matter further?

I don't know what the right decision would have been on this prop bet. I won't argue with Ruse's. I think previously playing underage should certainly be disclosed by Josh. If this was something 5 or ten years ago then it's a little different. But a few months ago he was willing to disregard the rules of online poker and that is relevant information to all bettors.

Edit: gl finishing out the bet. I have no dog in this race, but it will be epic if you ship it with the non-break break and all the drama ITT. FWIW I think you've handled yourself with class since the whole thing went down Josh.

someone asked for an update earlier; heres what SS has as of 2 mins ago

slayerv1fan 4,611 $0 $2 18% $1,787 - N/A PokerStars 10/1/2010 10/31/2010 E180-180 S<=2 SNG Only

$400 downswing to make it interesting profit wise!!!