$5000 to Race???

[TownBizz]

Most dogmen that I know nowadays race for $1000 or less...but $5000 IMO sounds more like a duck. What are your thoughts???

[TFX]

A lot of time goes into a keep. For some folks who are confident about their entry, the time invested needs to be "worth it" monetarily. Time is money. When I was younger, time or money didn't matter as much. I am out of dogs today, but hypothetically If I were going to take time away from my core business, my family, or my other interests and obligations for something like a keep, that something else needs to be worth the time invested. We've shown dogs for $100 and a bag of dog food, up to $5000, depending on circumstances and the interests of the other party. The dogs never knew the difference, and the size of the purse never changed the fact that they were conditioned dogs being exhibited, with an agreed upon purse, and a referee.

[SICKBOY]

i wouldnt do it for no less than what i would sell my dog for. Thats always been my rule. If you coulndt buy my dog for no less than $5000 then why would i risk losing it for less. Just my 2cents

[wrongway]

Sickboy, I like that!!!

[CitySwamp]

I'm amazed at how because 5k seems a lot to one person and not to other that they are ducking. 1k isn't nothing to some, most pups cost that much.. If you think 5K is a lot then boy hate to know what you think of Ch Sweet Jones 7xw 1xl, couldn't even talk to them if you ain't have $375k.. Yes you read me right.. I mean if you can't get 2k for a dog you believe in then how can you get up 5k if your prized hound gets sick needs surgery or something..

[friscofreaks]

Thats right, I see over seas like china bet over 100,000 us dollars and they aren't even that great of the dog. Plenty of dogmen will bet big bucks, so 5k is not ducking. I feel when you bet more than 5k and above than you just gotta to worry about the bs that comes along with it. Rub, cheating, guns and etc... It's not worth it. The crowd and people are different now. Most of people I know when I first started are all out.

[Hurstmob]

:arrow:

[Officially Retired]

It really depends on who's doing the betting, as different people have different-sized wallets.

$5,000 is a lot of money to "a working man," but to a self-made millionaire running a successful business $5K might seem like five cents and not be worth his time.

Unfortunately, many drug dealers have a lot of money too, but what they don't have (usually) is good sense nor do they usually run in good crowds. By engaging in high $$ deals with such crowds, you are potentially setting yourself up for some unwanted problems/attention by having large $$$ matches in cheap company like that.

On the other hand, there really are some highly-successful gentlemen in these dogs, and if you're doing large $$ deals with them, you usually won't have to worry about shenanigans.

So there are a lot of variables involved,

Jack

.

[TownBizz]

It really depends on who's doing the betting, as different people have different-sized wallets.

$5,000 is a lot of money to "a working man," but to a self-made millionaire running a successful business $5K might seem like five cents and not be worth his time.


Let's just create a scenario...

1. The one who got offered $5000k is a single parent 1 income household with a small yard.

2. The one who made the offer had to borrow a crate to ship an 8 month old pup he could not handle...and the shipping was paid for in advance. And also couldn't afford to pay the DNA fees when he first received that same pup at 10 weeks old for free.
3. The one who made the offer also breeds untested dogs at 1 year old.

[H.B.K.]

I know good people that ur not getting them into the box for less then $10 on it on first time out hounds. I dont think 5k is to much or ducking if that is what that person can afford to bet then its not to much. Ill give a scenerio of what i think is ducking. Two ch. both the same wieght one side calls out say 20k and thats all they can cover, the other side says well we want 25k or 30k. To me thats ducking when u get into that type of money and u dont do that because of 5 or 10k to me thats curring out! On another note money has no bearing on the caliber of hounds one may own cause ive seen really good ones go for 1k and ones i wouldnt take out for 1 let alonne 10 or 15k. If u love these hounds and how they perform then all u need is a bag of dog food for good compition. if u have money then it's better for the crowd if u know what i mean and there r dogmen who lost there lives over those big money crowds.

[TownBizz]

I know good people that ur not getting them into the box for less then $10 on it on first time out hounds. I dont think 5k is to much or ducking if that is what that person can afford to bet then its not to much. Ill give a scenerio of what i think is ducking. Two ch. both the same wieght one side calls out say 20k and thats all they can cover, the other side says well we want 25k or 30k. To me thats ducking when u get into that type of money and u dont do that because of 5 or 10k to me thats curring out! On another note money has no bearing on the caliber of hounds one may own cause ive seen really good ones go for 1k and ones i wouldnt take out for 1 let alonne 10 or 15k. If u love these hounds and how they perform then all u need is a bag of dog food for good compition. if u have money then it's better for the crowd if u know what i mean and there r dogmen who lost there lives over those big money crowds.

Totally agree! And the same can be said if one side can only cover $1000...but the other side throws the $5000!

[red dog]

It really depends on who's doing the betting, as different people have different-sized wallets.
$5,000 is a lot of money to "a working man," but to a self-made millionaire running a successful business $5K might seem like five cents and not be worth his time.
Unfortunately, many drug dealers have a lot of money too, but what they don't have (usually) is good sense nor do they usually run in good crowds. By engaging in high $$ deals with such crowds, you are potentially setting yourself up for some unwanted problems/attention by having large $$$ matches in cheap company like that.
On the other hand, there really are some highly-successful gentlemen in these dogs, and if you're doing large $$ deals with them, you usually won't have to worry about shenanigans.
So there are a lot of variables involved,
.

Jack You said it all there . there's nothing worse than somebody else's heat !!


.

[Hurstmob]

:arrow:

[H.B.K.]

I know good people that ur not getting them into the box for less then $10 on it on first time out hounds. I dont think 5k is to much or ducking if that is what that person can afford to bet then its not to much. Ill give a scenerio of what i think is ducking. Two ch. both the same wieght one side calls out say 20k and thats all they can cover, the other side says well we want 25k or 30k. To me thats ducking when u get into that type of money and u dont do that because of 5 or 10k to me thats curring out! On another note money has no bearing on the caliber of hounds one may own cause ive seen really good ones go for 1k and ones i wouldnt take out for 1 let alonne 10 or 15k. If u love these hounds and how they perform then all u need is a bag of dog food for good compition. if u have money then it's better for the crowd if u know what i mean and there r dogmen who lost there lives over those big money crowds.

Totally agree! And the same can be said if one side can only cover $1000...but the other side throws the $5000!


Yeah but u have o understand that there is a lot of work and time and money that goes into putting one in great shape and it's hard to find someone who is willing or wants to do all that for a 1000. And if someone is calling someone out for 1000 and the other side says 5000 thats not running to me. Like i said be4 it's running when ur up in the 20k or better and u still cant agree that means one is allways going to up the price to avoid what there scared of.

[Officially Retired]

It really depends on who's doing the betting, as different people have different-sized wallets.

$5,000 is a lot of money to "a working man," but to a self-made millionaire running a successful business $5K might seem like five cents and not be worth his time.
Let's just create a scenario...
1. The one who got offered $5000k is a single parent 1 income household with a small yard.
2. The one who made the offer had to borrow a crate to ship an 8 month old pup he could not handle...and the shipping was paid for in advance. And also couldn't afford to pay the DNA fees when he first received that same pup at 10 weeks old for free.
3. The one who made the offer also breeds untested dogs at 1 year old.


Well, as with anything else, each case is different.

There are some people who really don't think it is worth their time going through all the hassle/effort/risk of competing for less than "x" $$$ ... and then there are jackoffs who try to sound "fastlane" by pricing themselves out of the risk of competing. If you feel this person is of the latter variety, then just don't waste any more of your time dealing with them.

Back when I was competing, even though I was green, I still would never have wasted my time with someone like you described; I tried to go into the best competition I could, but it was never for more than $500. Of course, that was almost 20 years ago, but the guys I went into were all excellent, veteran dogmen that you didn't need to worry about a rub or any kind of BS like that with, but who knew how to bring Champion-level dogs and beat the best with them.

Jack


.

[BulldogConnection]

500-5000 is all the same lane. It's not hard to come up with $5000. A "working man" should be making atleast $600 a week. Save your money and make sacrifices otherwise don't race at all.

Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next. Don't bitch and complain.

[R2L]

up to 50 k is not uncommon. i personally think up to 3 is just fine. dogs should come first place, plus the glory and achievement you worked hard for is worth a lot more then cash

[Hurstmob]

:arrow:

[R2L]

Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next.

Do this if you want to get yourself into problems.

[Officially Retired]

Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next.

Do this if you want to get yourself into problems.


I agree, this is totally irresponsible and bad advice.

Betting money you can't afford to lose might be fine if you're 25 and live by yourself, with no one else depending on you (and if you want to run the risk of developing some seriously bad habits) ... but if you're older and, hopefully, with better sense than to think like this, allowing yourself to fall behind on your financial obligations just to do some dogs shows a serious thinking disorder and total lack of responsibility. This kind of mindset is typical of people who get desperate and cheat, is when their entire livelihood is riding on a dog deal, and they will "do anything" to win. There is no fun in competing like that, and there is no "good times" to be had with people who have seriously poor judgment like that.

Making a $5000 bet with a man who makes $150,000 a year can be fun.
Making a $5,000 bet with a group of guys who pooled their extra money together to make it happy can be fun.

But making a $5000 bet with a guy who's missed his mortgage payment, whose kids are hungry, and whose lights are turned out ... who has everything he's got riding on the outcome of a dog deal isn't "fun" at all ... it is feeding the gambling disorder of an irresponsible derelict ... and if things start to go bad for that man's dog, you can bet your ass he will not show anything close to "good sportsmanship" and pick up ... and things might get even uglier than that if he loses both his dogs and his money over the deal.

So, no disrespect to anyone, but that is about the furthest thing from a sensible opinion that has been posted to date IMO.

Jack


.

[BulldogConnection]

Do this if you want to get yourself into problems.

You could say that about even getting involved with these dogs in the first place. Now my advice would be either save your money or stay out of matters you that can get you into trouble in the first place. But if you want to play above your pay grade sacrifices have to be made. If you can't afford to eat at a 4 or 5 star restaurant then don't go. Don't cry about how it's not fair the menu is too expensive. Go over to to Applebee's and eat some decent food on a budget. Or you could stop going to Applebee's every weekend and save that $$$. Then after a little while go see what that 4 star restaurant is all about. Maybe you realize that's not your scene and you wasted a lot of money or maybe you find out the meal was worth the price tag. Or hell maybe you decide it was good and if you could afford it you'd go more often but Applebee's tastes just fine.

[BulldogConnection]

Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next.

Do this if you want to get yourself into problems.


I agree, this is totally irresponsible and bad advice.

Betting money you can't afford to lose might be fine if you're 25 and live by yourself, with no one else depending on you (and if you want to run the risk of developing some seriously bad habits) ... but if you're older and, hopefully, with better sense than to think like this, allowing yourself to fall behind on your financial obligations just to do some dogs shows a serious thinking disorder and total lack of responsibility. This kind of mindset is typical of people who get desperate and cheat, is when their entire livelihood is riding on a dog deal, and they will "do anything" to win. There is no fun in competing like that, and there is no "good times" to be had with people who have seriously poor judgment like that.

Making a $5000 bet with a man who makes $150,000 a year can be fun.
Making a $5,000 bet with a group of guys who pooled their extra money together to make it happy can be fun.

But making a $5000 bet with a guy who's missed his mortgage payment, whose kids are hungry, and whose lights are turned out ... who has everything he's got riding on the outcome of a dog deal isn't "fun" at all ... it is feeding the gambling disorder of an irresponsible derelict ... and if things start to go bad for that man's dog, you can bet your ass he will not show anything close to "good sportsmanship" and pick up ... and things might get even uglier than that if he loses both his dogs and his money over the deal.

So, no disrespect to anyone, but that is about the furthest thing from a sensible opinion that has been posted to date IMO.

Jack


.

I agree with a lot of that but when I say fall behind on a few bills I don't mean take food out of your kids mouths but I suppose I did leave that open to however the reader saw the situation. Maybe they go late on the phone bill or cable doesn't get paid that month. Neither of these is ideal and if you have to struggle to make the purse then what's the point.

However if someone is going to be picking up just because "things start to go bad" then he'd be better off not doing dogs at all. Things are going to start going bad at one point or another. It's not all just a walk through a flower patch. Everyone has their own ideas on when to pick up and when to leave em down but IMO when you fully believe there is no way to win then you pick up. Picking up just because the going gets tough is goin to get expensive and pretty pointless.

[Officially Retired]

I agree with a lot of that but when I say fall behind on a few bills I don't mean take food out of your kids mouths but I suppose I did leave that open to however the reader saw the situation. Maybe they go late on the phone bill or cable doesn't get paid that month. Neither of these is ideal and if you have to struggle to make the purse then what's the point.
However if someone is going to be picking up just because "things start to go bad" then he'd be better off not doing dogs at all. Things are going to start going bad at one point or another. It's not all just a walk through a flower patch. Everyone has their own ideas on when to pick up and when to leave em down but IMO when you fully believe there is no way to win then you pick up. Picking up just because the going gets tough is goin to get expensive and pretty pointless.


Well, I think getting late on any bills to do a dog deal is irresponsible. I am not saying I have always been responsible, LOL, but as I get older I realize how foolish I was when I was younger.

I agree with your thoughts on picking up, you're there to win not molly-coddle your dog, and it's a tough sport. But, if there's no way to win, it's time to exercise good sportsmanship and go home clean ... but the man who's "desperate" for the money isn't going to think like that ... whereas the man who's comfortable either way is going to be the better sport in most cases.

I don't think anyone should "bet the farm" on any dog (or bet what he cannot afford to lose); I just don't think that's responsible nor the pathway to good results & happy endings.

Naturally, you have the right to feel different.

Jack


.

[lilpitgirl]

some of the best shows Ive seen have been for500-1500 and always good sportsmanship

[thefoodchain]

Sign of the times. These are the ways of these days and times. I read this yesterday and had a reply then but I said to my self "self look at it from all perspectives". And I did and the song remains the same. There is the mindset of if you can't pay the cost, then you can't be the boss. Our thing , if you take time to do the knowledge. Is full of the haves and have nots. From the days of moonshine to narcotics, it's always tipped the scale in a direction that only a handful came out a race a car that has been tuned up with the greatest of commitment. My thinking on this is, I thought it was an agreement between two parties to find the truth.

In some cases it seems to limit the pool of contenders, they just don't have the resources. And I hear those of you that are saying, they had no reason being there to start with. I don't fully agree with that premise. I can site far too many examples where as money from the street had a TRUE competitor have to say thanks but no thanks. All the while knowing who owned the truth. Cause when it's all said and done, it's about the competition. Right.

[DROPZONE]

Alot of working people cant afford 5k . But when the crowd that school with fimd out that ypu want to hook a nice one that they have seen, the money gets.high and then you can go into the same. In my opinion i think thats why when you go into people that go into the deep water thats why thee money might get high .havent read all the post ,so sory if i wrote the same thing as someone else. Also having people back you should be a compliment to.you and your hound. And it will improve your yard. Because you will travel to other stateswih people that also have backing (quality stock). Ps i will do it for dog food ;) lol.

[Officially Retired]

Sign of the times. These are the ways of these days and times. I read this yesterday and had a reply then but I said to my self "self look at it from all perspectives". And I did and the song remains the same. There is the mindset of if you can't pay the cost, then you can't be the boss. Our thing , if you take time to do the knowledge. Is full of the haves and have nots. From the days of moonshine to narcotics, it's always tipped the scale in a direction that only a handful came out a race a car that has been tuned up with the greatest of commitment. My thinking on this is, I thought it was an agreement between two parties to find the truth.
In some cases it seems to limit the pool of contenders, they just don't have the resources. And I hear those of you that are saying, they had no reason being there to start with. I don't fully agree with that premise. I can site far too many examples where as money from the street had a TRUE competitor have to say thanks but no thanks. All the while knowing who owned the truth. Cause when it's all said and done, it's about the competition. Right.

Well, I think it is hard for anyone to say what "it's all about" that covers everybody's opinion. I have known people who think it's "all about winning," to the extent that they would actually cheat to get there. I have known dozens of people who would leave a dog down to get there too, sacrificing the life of their game dog just for the $$. As an example, when the old man's 8xW Gr Ch Doolie was dying to Gr Ch Melonhead there were people in the crowd telling him to pick up, and the old man actually said, "I need the money more than I need the dog." Finally, the owner of Melonhead told the old man he'd pay him to pick up, because even he didn't want to see a great, DG, 8xW dog get killed when he just couldn't win. So trying to say what "it's all about" simply can't cover all the bases for everybody, because too many people think differently and have different values.

Yes, the above-described demonstrates the fastest of fast-lane matches. Truly, even the Buck / Sandman match wasn't as big a deal as the Melonhead / Doolie match (dog-wise), it just got written about more because STP and Rebel were more flamboyant, but in the end it was a 6xW versus a 5xW with Buck and Sandman, not a (then) 12xW versus an 8xW in Melonhead and Doolie. In fact, the old man never reported a single match in his life. In his direct words to me he said, "Jack, I don't want fame, and I don't want publicity, all I want is the money."

Now, if it were me, I would have wanted my Grand Champion more than the money, and I would gladly kiss the money goodbye to make damned sure I took my Grand Champion home alive. To my way of thinking, a person who is willing to let his friend's life slip away right before his eyes, all over a "win" or "$$" has lost his humanity somewhere along the line. I like winning too, and I do like money also, but what I like most of all is to be able to live with myself when I shut the lights off. However, if it was an $80,000 bet it wouldn't be quite as easy to kiss that amount goodbye as it would $2500. Would the money make the dogs better? Nope. The winner was going to be the winner, regardless of the amount bet. However, the lower bet would make the sportsmanship better, where people can stand to lose and pick up like a good sport, versus a super-high bet where (even though he knows he has the losing dog), the owner still won't pick up out of some "lightning-in-a-bottle" hope that the other dog just stands there and his own dog still somehow wins.

So, to me, it's "all about" having the best dogs, and conducting myself with good sportsmanship, and being in an environment of surrounding people who are not likely to bring-in the law. To someone else, it might be all about "winning and getting that money," regardless of the costs, and they might enjoy the company of people who are much more likely to get popped, due to their mentality and lifestyle.

It would be my own opinion that, ideally, in a sport about dogs, that "dog quality" should come first ... but, after careful study of the general natures of dogmen over the course of 2 decades, the reality seems to be that MOST people put "some other value" ahead of the actual dogs involved, for one reason or another.

Jack


.

[BulldogConnection]

In fairness to the comment about a man losing humanity, while I realize this was only your opinion. To some people the dogs aren't looked at as "friends" being sent to slaughter. They are tools or livestock. Working animals they own in order to fulfill a task, in some cases to make money. A real man will take great care of his tools and livestock providing them with the proper care and handling them with respect but at the end of the day they are still only an outlet or avenue to a means for him. A dog left down to win money is a dog being given absolutely every chance possible to fulfill its task for its owner. As long as that dog wants to be there then I don't think it's cruel. Cruel being a word that's very subjective. Can something like that be hard to watch? Sure, but many things in this life are.

While I'm not advocating any sort of behavior or saying its how I go about things I am able and try as much as possible to look at both sides. Playing devils advocate.

[Officially Retired]

That is a good post, BC.

However, I am not talking about "cruelty," I am talking about value, and where a man's ultimate values get placed.

First of all, I agree/disagree that cruelty is subjective. Yes, cruelty is subjective insofar as what may be cruel for one dog is not cruel to another. If a pit bull is killing a poodle, for example, the affair is subjectively cruel for the poodle, and subjectively enjoyable for the pit bull, and any observer with an IQ over 80 can see this objectively. In the same way, regarding the presence or absence of cruelty in our sport, if one pit bull is curring-out, and not wanting to be there, then yes the affair becomes cruel for him, but not for the other dog. However, when the losing dog is DG, and still wants to be there even though he is dying, then I agree there is no cruelty at all to let him die in there ... but what there IS is a lack of value for the life of a DG dog in the owner. To me, this is the big issue here!

Therefore, and logically-speaking, it would be my opinion that any man who values a "win" (or "the money") over the life of his DG dog, logically places greater value on winning/money than his dog, and so cannot properly be called a "dog man" in the trenches, when the life/death of his dog is on the line. Instead, because he places more value on the winning/$$ than preserving the life of his DG dog, such a man is more properly called a GAMBLER, who is using dogs as his tools. His ultimate value isn't in his dogs, it's in the winning/$$$.

By contrast, and (really) by definition, the DOGman places his highest value in his dogs first, not second, and doesn't look at his DG dog as a "disposable item" ... but rather as an example of the ultimate goal in this breed to be salvaged and perpetuated, not merely discarded for a bet or a buck.

Jack

.

[BulldogConnection]

Valid opinions.

You are right in that what's cruel to one may be perfectly acceptable to another. There are many people that believe actively doing dogs is cruel behavior while others do not. Certain people view Captial Punishment as a cruel practice however many are fine with its use. What's cruel or crude behavior to me may not have the same effect on you regardless of mental capacity. There are some subjects that seem to share the same view across the board but as a whole cruelty is very subjective and takes many factors of a persons background and upbringing into account.

Some people might not want or care to hold the title of dogman. Or even be labeled a gambler as there are many gamblers who don't own a dog, drive a car or ever touched a horse in real life. Being a gambler doesnt have to be a discredit to character. Someone can make bets on a dog but never show one themselves because they dont hve the resolve to actvely participate in the sport. There isn't even a real need to label them at all. They might just be a man, or woman, with a dog.

Again not arguing your opinion or saying its wrong. Just playing off it.

[Officially Retired]

Valid opinions.
You are right in that what's cruel to one may be perfectly acceptable to another. There are many people that believe actively doing dogs is cruel behavior while others do not. Certain people view Captial Punishment as a cruel practice however many are fine with its use. What's cruel or crude behavior to me may not have the same effect on you regardless of mental capacity. There are some subjects that seem to share the same view across the board but as a whole cruelty is very subjective and takes many factors of a persons background and upbringing into account.

Excellent points, all of them.

As someone with a degree in ethical theory, the key to defining "cruelty" is not based on my opinion, or your opinion, but in fact the perspective of the participant.

For example, an actual dogfight is neutral, and there are only two perspectives that matter: those of the individual dogs. One dog may enjoy it, and one dog may be terrified of it, and thus there is both cruelty and enjoyment in the same neutral dogfight. The whole idea behind the Cajun Rules is actually to eliminate cruelty and to reward gameness (fighting enjoyment). The first "sign" of a dog not wanting to be there is called a turn. The first sign of a dog not wanting to continue (standing the line) and the fight is OVER. Thus, again, the entire point of our sport is to prevent cruelty, by stopping the contest when one dog no longer wants to be there, and by rewarding gameness, in cherishing and awarding the win to those dogs who never stop WANTING to fight.

I do agree, some people are so irrational that they cannot see this in our sport, and will hate it regardless of the facts as I stated them. But it also swings the other way, namely that some people have absolutely no regard for life at all, and do not place any value on the actual dogs involved, only the win/lose aspect, which (instead of being an excess of emotion over "poor doggies") is an utter lack of emotional attachment to the dogs at all. And IMO, excess in either direction is undesirable.



______________________________
______________________________





Some people might not want or care to hold the title of dogman. Or even be labeled a gambler as there are many gamblers who don't own a dog, drive a car or ever touched a horse in real life. Being a gambler doesnt have to be a discredit to character. Someone can make bets on a dog but never show one themselves because they dont hve the resolve to actvely participate in the sport. There isn't even a real need to label them at all. They might just be a man, or woman, with a dog.
Again not arguing your opinion or saying its wrong. Just playing off it.

I think being a hardcore gambler is always a character disorder, and most psychologists see it as such. Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance, and which (especially when lives are on the line) almost always yields detrimental results. Now, my own brother is a professional poker player, and has studied it mathematically, and actually can calculate his odds and count cards, because of his incredible intellect, but he does it for purely academic reasons and never bets "his whole earnings" on any bet. He just does it as an intellectual game, a pastime, but never to excess--even though statistically he wins FAR mare than he loses, and that is at a very high level of play.

Regarding labels, I think they are important, but I agree they can be misused. For example, if someone stole a dog from you, and took your money also, I am pretty sure you would label them "a thief," and I also am pretty sure you wouldn't detach yourself emotionally and just call him "a man who wanted my money." Labels can be either praise, neutral, or pejorative in nature ... and generating these sentiments can be important for perspective: warning people of bad natures and encouraging people of good natures.

And, to my way of thinking, any man who values a win more than life itself cannot entirely be trusted, because his values are upside-down according to the way I see the world. Because most of the people I know who have values like this have other questionable value systems as well, as almost invariably they will "cross the line" in other key and ways that show a disregard for others, to get what they want, if you study their behavior closely.

Jack

[bolero]

live stock or not if you spend time with them to bond and you have any humanity to bond at all you will get some attachment. i got one dog who sleeps with me and spends all day with me could he get hurt ya could he die ya, but i will not let him unnecissary punishment. when you leave one down to die you turn a sport into a slaughter. i take pride in everything i won from a tv to a dog and i respect all my possesions i want the best but if it is not i still take good care of it. these dogs can not survive without us and rely on and trust us and to break that trust is not what a man does they are loyal so we should be loyal. when your animal is giving its all and can give no more do the right thing and take case of him or her. and the worse thing is how ppl treat curs a cur can not help who he is no more than an ace can help who he is, treat them all with respect, do the right thing and cull but do it properly

[Earl Tudor]

Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance, and which (especially when lives are on the line) almost always yields detrimental results. Now, my own brother is a professional poker player, and has studied it mathematically, and actually can calculate his odds and count cards, because of his incredible intellect, but he does it for purely academic reasons and never bets "his whole earnings" on any bet. He just does it as an intellectual game, a pastime, but never to excess--even though statistically he wins FAR mare than he loses, and that is at a very high level of play.


Jack
Your definition of gambling (given the right individual, and the right game or sport) is flawed, even by your own statements about your brother. I'm sure he would disagree that he doesn't put in "any real effort, by chance" when he is playing poker. If he bet "his whole earnings", it wouldn't change his odds and he would still "statistically win FAR more than he loses" wouldn't he? The very definition of "professional poker player", means they can make a profession out of it. Dogs are no different than poker in my humble opinion. There is a reason why guys like the old man, STP, Rebel, Crenshaw, Fat Bill, Mayfield, Tudor, etc won at such high percentages while others flounder. They proved repeatedly that winning for them was not "by chance". They had a better eye for a dog, knew how to raise them, knew how to school them, knew how to pick the right weight, knew how to condition them, knew how to feed properly,and knew how to provide proper after care in order to repeat the process all over again. I would also suggest that this required them putting in a whole lot of real effort. I'm sure you're going to let me have, be kind :lol:

[Officially Retired]

live stock or not if you spend time with them to bond and you have any humanity to bond at all you will get some attachment. i got one dog who sleeps with me and spends all day with me could he get hurt ya could he die ya, but i will not let him unnecissary punishment. when you leave one down to die you turn a sport into a slaughter. i take pride in everything i won from a tv to a dog and i respect all my possesions i want the best but if it is not i still take good care of it. these dogs can not survive without us and rely on and trust us and to break that trust is not what a man does they are loyal so we should be loyal. when your animal is giving its all and can give no more do the right thing and take case of him or her. and the worse thing is how ppl treat curs a cur can not help who he is no more than an ace can help who he is, treat them all with respect, do the right thing and cull but do it properly


Great post.

[Officially Retired]

Your definition of gambling (given the right individual, and the right game or sport) is flawed, even by your own statements about your brother. I'm sure he would disagree that he doesn't put in "any real effort, by chance" when he is playing poker. If he bet "his whole earnings", it wouldn't change his odds and he would still "statistically win FAR more than he loses" wouldn't he? The very definition of "professional poker player", means they can make a profession out of it.

Actually, your own definition of gambling is flawed, but I do get your point.

First of all, nowhere did I state my brother put in "no effort" into learning the game of poker, so it is important in any discussion to stick to what is actually said, and not to make "strawman" arguments about what in fact was never said. What I actually said was my brother was a professional player, meaning that he enters money tournaments, but he is not an excessive gambler, which means he does not risk "everything he has" on his bets. In other words, there is a difference between a sensible bet and a true gambler and risk-taker.




Dogs are no different than poker in my humble opinion.

I would disagree, because dogs are living, breathing creatures ... who feel pain and who have VALUE as entities when they're showing extreme gameness ... whereas a deck of playing cards has no intrinsic worth in-and-of itself.




There is a reason why guys like the old man, STP, Rebel, Crenshaw, Fat Bill, Mayfield, Tudor, etc won at such high percentages while others flounder. They proved repeatedly that winning for them was not "by chance". They had a better eye for a dog, knew how to raise them, knew how to school them, knew how to pick the right weight, knew how to condition them, knew how to feed properly,and knew how to provide proper after care in order to repeat the process all over again. I would also suggest that this required them putting in a whole lot of real effort. I'm sure you're going to let me have, be kind :lol:

First of all, please don't mention the old man's name on this forum again. I promised him 8 years ago I would never mention his name online, and I will not let it be mentioned on my forum either. It is called respecting a man's wishes and keeping your word, so I ask that you please respect these wishes.

Secondly, again, you made up this whole idea about "not putting forth effort," so you're attributing things to me that I never said.

Third, you are likewise confusing talent, an eye, and acquired skills ... for gambling it all on a bet. There are some people who have no talent and no eye, there are some people who have great talent and a great eye, but neither of these necessarily has anything to do with the will to leave a dog down to die over a bet. As an example of this clear distinction, I remember reading in Fat Bill's mag about the talented STP matching his Revenge dog into the talented Ozzie Stevens' Cholly Boy dog, and when Revenge fell far enough behind that his life was in danger, STP showed class and picked him up. These were talented men at the top of their game, but yet they did not bet so much as to conduct themselves in anything less than a first class, sportsmanlike manner. So, in point of fact, this is where your argument gets refuted. Both of these men had talent, an eye, and had a bet ... but STP did not let his dog die needlessly, when it was clear he could not win.

Jack

PS: Was I kind enough for you? :mrgreen:

[Earl Tudor]

[quote="Earl Tudor":1t56fktn]Your definition of gambling (given the right individual, and the right game or sport) is flawed, even by your own statements about your brother. I'm sure he would disagree that he doesn't put in "any real effort, by chance" when he is playing poker. If he bet "his whole earnings", it wouldn't change his odds and he would still "statistically win FAR more than he loses" wouldn't he? The very definition of "professional poker player", means they can make a profession out of it.

Actually, your own definition of gambling is flawed, but I do get your point.

First of all, nowhere did I state my brother put in "no effort" into learning the game of poker, so it is important in any discussion to stick to what is actually said, and not to make "strawman" arguments about what in fact was never said. What I actually said was my brother was a professional player, meaning that he enters money tournaments, but he is not an excessive gambler, which means he does not risk "everything he has" on his bets. In other words, there is a difference between a sensible bet and a true gambler and risk-taker.




Dogs are no different than poker in my humble opinion.

I would disagree, because dogs are living, breathing creatures ... who feel pain and who have VALUE as entities when they're dead game ... whereas playing cards have no intrinsic worth in-and-of themselves.




There is a reason why guys like the old man, STP, Rebel, Crenshaw, Fat Bill, Mayfield, Tudor, etc won at such high percentages while others flounder. They proved repeatedly that winning for them was not "by chance". They had a better eye for a dog, knew how to raise them, knew how to school them, knew how to pick the right weight, knew how to condition them, knew how to feed properly,and knew how to provide proper after care in order to repeat the process all over again. I would also suggest that this required them putting in a whole lot of real effort. I'm sure you're going to let me have, be kind :lol:

First of all, please don't mention the old man's name on this forum again. I promised him 8 years ago I would never mention his name online, and I will not let it be mentioned on my forum either. It is called respecting a man's wishes and keeping your word.

Secondly, again, you made up this whole idea about "not putting forth effort," so you're attributing things to me that I never said.

Third, you are likewise confusing talent, an eye, and acquired skills ... for gambling it all on a bet. There are some people who have no talent and no eye, there are some people who have great talent and a great eye, but neither of these necessarily has anything to do with the will to leave a dog down to die. For example, I remember reading in Fat Bill's mag about the talented STP matching his Revenge dog into the talented Ozzie Stevens' Cholly Boy dog, and when Revenge fell far enough behind that his life was in danger, STP showed class and picked him up. So, in point of fact, this is where your argument gets refuted. Both of these men had talent, an eye, and had a bet ... but STP did not let his dog die needlessly, when it was clear he could not win.

Jack

PS: Was I kind enough for you? :mrgreen:[/quote:1t56fktn]
Sorry, I must have misread your point of view, I was basing my argument on your statement of

Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance
I also was unaware that the oldmans name was taboo, my bad.

[Officially Retired]

Sorry, I must have misread your point of view, I was basing my argument on your statement xx


Okay, I stand refuted on that point, you're right I did imply that. But that was about true GAMBLERS not someone like my brother.

For example, the gambling old man to whom I am referring never really conditioned his dogs, he just put them on 15' chains on the side of the hill ... and paid a man to walk them for miles ... he actually never exhibited any real effort of his own. But he sure did have an eye for a dog, the money to buy what he wanted, and the ability to call the right weight.





I also was unaware that the oldmans name was taboo, my bad.

No problem, you had no way to know :)

Cheers,

Jack

.

[BulldogConnection]

A better way to put what you are referring to is more of an irresponsible gambler or maybe a problem/compulsive gambler. Your brother is a TRUE gambler by definition because he bets money on the outcome of an event with varying odds. He may be a more calculated gambler than others but a gambler none the less. This is a situation where, as mentioned before, labeling can be usefull and maybe even necessary if only for clarity. All gamblers don't exhibit the qualities you see as less than. Some are controlled and calculated; others emotional and unconventional. And everything in between. But I'd go as far as to say ALL want to win.

This train has gotten a bit off track though...

[riproscoe]

Its a duck 5000 not for the working man I'm a one man team the most I do is 3000.00 I work hard for my money I talked to a. Guy the other day and said he wanted to go for 10000.00 I said u must be crazy lmfao so I called him back vto call his bluff and told him let's do it he said no. That he wants to go in to a. Ch. What a clown ppl that beat to much r ducking go in to a real dog kennel u know how us small kennels r we have no room for junk we we go out we bring a bulldog fuck tghe money just cull hard and get it done and be a good sport and stop hiding behind the money curs lol

[R2L]

owners of ch pan recently challenged ch rhino for a rematch , max bet 50 000 euro
best believe they dont hide behind money

[Officially Retired]

A better way to put what you are referring to is more of an irresponsible gambler or maybe a problem/compulsive gambler. Your brother is a TRUE gambler by definition because he bets money on the outcome of an event with varying odds. He may be a more calculated gambler than others but a gambler none the less. This is a situation where, as mentioned before, labeling can be usefull and maybe even necessary if only for clarity. All gamblers don't exhibit the qualities you see as less than. Some are controlled and calculated; others emotional and unconventional. And everything in between. But I'd go as far as to say ALL want to win.
This train has gotten a bit off track though...

Interesting distinctions.

Just to clarify, the old man was a very calculated gambler, extremely calculated, but (for the most part) he didn't care about the dog's life if there was serious money riding.
My brother is a calculated gambler in his own way, but he would never put his family's savings at risk or do anything irresponsible in his betting. He sets aside his "gambling money" and keeps this reserve totally separate from his other money.

There are irresponsible/compulsive gamblers, true, but there are also calculated gamblers who don't care about anything but winning. Hell, I think pretty much everyone wants to win, but where the subject of "ethics" and gambling comes in to play is how far a person is willing to go to win. I would say the definition of a "good sport" is someone who will do anything within the rules to win, while a cheater will do anything to win, period, whether it's within the rules or not. In fact, some people become experts at cheating and have all manner of tricks up their sleeves. You might even call them "calculated, professional cheats."

Regarding the specific subject of dog deals, another point where "ethics" comes in to play is when the dog's life is sacrificed to gain a win. I believe this would fall under most people's definition of "unethical" or "poor sportsmanship." Consider the same thing in human boxing: everyone can appreciate an epic battle (like Ali and Frazier in 'The Thrilla in Manilla'), where two DG men fight their hearts out, displaying awesome skill till the bitter end, but at some point the greater value has to be placed on the fighters themselves when any fight gets to the point one (or both) will die. It is precisely here where a person's true value system can be seen.

In the Ali/Frazier deal, any intelligent person could see that both Ali and Frazier were World Class, truly great fighters by that 13th round ... when the fight was stopped, even though the fight was not yet totally over. IMO, it was correct for the fight to be stopped by the ref, and Ali given the nod, and it would have been a crime to just let it go until the bitter end ... to where Frazier (or both) couldn't be salvaged. This is what separates a civilized mentality, which values life over the trivial minutia of 'what would have happened ultimately' ... versus a barbaric mentality, that has no regard for life, but just wants to see 'the final end' with one man a lifeless bloody pulp while another man stands over him (or maybe both are lost).

This same mentality goes to the dogs. When you have two great dogs go to the bitter end, to me the DOGman values his charge's life and will pick up before all is lost, which is in alignment with the concept of "good sportsmanship" in every other kind of sport or human combat, and it shows that the dog is this man's greatest value, not the bet. By contrast, the gambler will let the deal play out to the bitter end ... because "winning" is the supreme value to him, not the dog. This is just basic logic. For when the dog becomes secondary to a bet, then at that point it logically follows that the person with this value system cannot properly be called a "dog" man. Instead he properly is called a "gambler," a betting man, whose primary value is the bet/money, not his animal.

Jack

.

[Crofab]

This same mentality goes to the dogs. When you have two great dogs go to the bitter end, to me the DOGman values his charge's life and will pick up before all is lost, which is in alignment with the concept of "good sportsmanship" in every other kind of sport or human combat, and it shows that the dog is this man's greatest value, not the bet. By contrast, the gambler will let the deal play out to the bitter end ... because "winning" is the supreme value to him, not the dog. This is just basic logic. For when the dog becomes secondary to a bet, then at that point it logically follows that the person with this value system cannot properly be called a "dog" man. Instead he properly is called a "gambler," a betting man, whose primary value is the bet/money, not his animal.

Jack


If there are two great dogs going until the bitter end, I can't actively say that any dogman I know would pick his dog up. That lends me to believe that the match is hanging in the balance where either dog can still possibly win. Now, if there were two great dogs, and one one of those great dogs were at the point of no chance at attaining the win, then yes, it becomes about sportsmanship and doing the right thing for the dog without a chance of pulling off the victory.

I don't see someone that's allowing his dog, that is still in the thick of the battle, the chance to win as a gambler. I see that someone as a man/woman that believes in their dog, and their dog's ability to rightfully claim a victory. I simply don't believe that it's always about the money when a match hangs in the balance. Some people's motives are pure in that they are simply allowing the dog to do what it's heritage dictates it do. And yet others are exactly as you describe, and they make it known for all to see.

[Officially Retired]

I agree with what you said.

By going to the bitter end, I mean when one dog has clearly taken over, and is starting to put the other dog away, the sportsman picks up and concedes the deal (same as in boxing the corner throws in the towel when their fighter is out on their feet). There is no need to let it go all the way to the bitter end and a DOA.

However, if the dog is just behind, but you can see he is still strong and still has a real shot, that is something else again and no, it is definitely not time to pick up yet.

[BulldogConnection]

I agree with what you said.

By going to the bitter end, I mean when one dog has clearly taken over, and is starting to put the other dog away, the sportsman picks up and concedes the deal (same as in boxing the corner throws in the towel when their fighter is out on their feet). There is no need to let it go all the way to the bitter end and a DOA.

However, if the dog is just behind, but you can see he is still strong and still has a real shot, that is something else again and no, it is definitely not time to pick up yet.

Now this is an interesting thought. So would a man leaving his down dog down because he believes his animal still has a shot be considered just a gambler? Even when everyone around him doesn't think it does and believes he should pick up?

IMO a pickup should be made when you believe your hound has no chance to win and has just been out dogged. But if someone leaves their dog down longer than I think that dog can take then who am I? That man or woman knows their animal better than me. Many times in a brutal contest a dog may take so much damage that even when picked up it can be lost on the table, on the ride home or even a week later. Even if it was only one hold behind the entire match. A sportsman would give that dog every chance possible to win and possibly lose its life rather than take a loss and lose it later on. Now to a bystander this sportsman could look like simply a gambler who doesn't care for the dogs.

[bolero]

thinking ur dog has a chance and him actually having a chance are two different things, if everyone around u thinks u should pick up then there is probably a good reason for it. there is always a possibility the other dog will quit but the probability is unlikely.

[Crofab]

thinking ur dog has a chance and him actually having a chance are two different things, if everyone around u thinks u should pick up then there is probably a good reason for it. there is always a possibility the other dog will quit but the probability is unlikely.

This could be true or could not be true, depending on who "everyone" is and whether they have any experience in regards to such matters. The world is ripe with people who pick their dogs when it's painfully obvious the dog is still in the fray, and a lot of those particular individuals are always at ringside adding their opinions like the cheap popcorn they're worth. Many people over the years fancy themselves as dogmen, but they simply don't have the stones to actually compete when their particular row gets too hard to hoe. The owner of the dog, if he's of any repute and consequence, knows his dog and his capabilities a lot more than "everyone" standing around watching.

But I do agree that thinking the dog has a chance and him actually having it are two separate ideas.

[Officially Retired]

This could be true or could not be true, depending on who "everyone" is and whether they have any experience in regards to such matters.

This is true, good point. The opinions/motives of the person or persons saying, "Pick up your dog!" have to be examined.




The world is ripe with people who pick their dogs when it's painfully obvious the dog is still in the fray, and a lot of those particular individuals are always at ringside adding their opinions like the cheap popcorn they're worth.

Unfortunately, the world is also ripe with people who have don't have the sense /class to pick up when it's clear that it needs to be done and is the right thing to do ... which is a far greater crime to the sport than a guy picking up a bit too early.




Many people over the years fancy themselves as dogmen, but they simply don't have the stones to actually compete when their particular row gets too hard to hoe.

Yeah well, many people over the years fancy "themselves" as having stones, just because they wantonly put their dogs in bad situations, when the truth is such people wouldn't have the stones to handle anything like that kind of situation "themselves."




The owner of the dog, if he's of any repute and consequence, knows his dog and his capabilities a lot more than "everyone" standing around watching.


This is true in some cases, not so true in others. Sometimes the actual owner is "too close to the tree" to see the whole forest clearly. This is what his second is for also: adding to the perspective.





But I do agree that thinking the dog has a chance and him actually having it are two separate ideas.

I think everyone can agree on that.

Jack

.

[Crofab]

Unfortunately, the world is also ripe with people who have don't have the sense /class to pick up when it's clear that it needs to be done and is the right thing to do ... which is a far greater crime to the sport than a guy picking up a bit too early.

There will be no disagreement from me here.





Yeah well, many people over the years fancy "themselves" as having stones, just because they wantonly put their dogs in bad situations, when the truth is such people wouldn't have the stones to handle anything like that kind of situation "themselves."

That is true, but I think this may be where we have the same view but with different terminology. A person that wantonly puts their dogs in those unnecessary situations isn't showing they have any stones. They are showing a lack of understanding of what it takes to be worthy to handle and/or care for such an animal. Any total and complete idiot can do that without giving it a second thought as we've all seen for years on end with individuals.





This is true in some cases, not so true in others. Sometimes the actual owner is "too close to the tree" to see the whole forest clearly. This is what his second is for also: adding to the perspective.

At times, you're exactly right. At times, I'm exactly right. There have been times when I've been "too close to the tree", so to speak; I think we all have if we've done this type of thing with any longevity. As time and the world moved on, I learned how to find, most of the time, a middle ground where I can see the tree and the forest equally. Hopefully people are willing to grow and develop some objectivity to this dear old sport and develop the same mental compass as many others.

[SZ82]

If it looks like I'm going to lose a good dog, even if they CAN, undoubtedly, mount a comeback and win, but doing so will result in their death, I'll pick up and take the L. I know what I have in that particular dog at that point, and that would be the main point of the venture, no?

[loot]

In the circle I run with there are only 3 of us. When 1 is going out we put our money together to make the purse. What you put in the pot you get back double if we win. It has worked out pretty good.

[EGK]

How come folks always try to say the keep cost so much is why they gamble so high. To me when I hear folks say this how I eat I run the other way. A good raw diet may cost $25 a week and really most sups are one time buys. For the 6 to 8wks you're hooked that's $150-200. Your blood builder and juice is probably left over from 2 keeps before. If you buy more add $300-350 but most don't even use this stuff cause they don't know how or dnot know of it.. Superfuel, vertex, and RF1 $35-55. Blood work from a vet add another $35-50. On the low end raw diet, Superfuel, and blood work if you do it is $220 for a solid keep and 600 on the high end. If you don't make a living off dogs then 500 puts your money back in your pocket and you go home without the trouble. A 1000 to 2500 on it and you still in the plus. Most will go get a bag of pro plan chicken or Orijen at best that will last almost half if not the whole keep and K9 Superfuel or one of those sups. So $40 to $200. $500 to 1000 not bad at all in this case. Its folks choice to bet what they want to, can, or just stay in the lane that they're most comfortable with. You absolutely have to know your lane.

[EWO]

Your numbers are pretty accurate and I agree with most of your post. A lot of times when the 'cost of the keep' factors in it is because they are paying someone to work the dog. Usually it is the numbers you spoke of plus 'labor'. That could add another $750-$1000.

I most definitely agree "You absolutely have to know your lane". The guy with a bucket full of money is not obligated to drop his stakes to make something happen. And they guy that does not can't be expected to re-finance the house in order to cover in another league. If the guy with a bucket full of money really wants to know the better dog, or really wants to prove he has the better dog, then he has the option to adjust. If he does or does not, that is his business. There is not a lot the guy without the money can really do except race in his lane.

With that said, neither lane has a monopoly on the quality of the dog. Neither dog is in a faster lane than the other. Unless of course one of the dog's can count and only makes scratch for said amount of monies and that would be an entirely different topic.

This does not happen often but it does happen. I collected a forfeit at a show where two dogs were going for their CH. I think we were going for $1000 or so with first time out dogs. I collected my money and the two 2XW's proceeded. When both camps laid their money out I was in awe. It started out at 10K per side and when they got thru arguing and side betting there was just about 30K on the table. The dogs put on a pretty good show. Both were game and one was a little more talented than the other. It took nearly two hours and one won and the other made what I thought was a really game courtesy scratch. My dog was their weight and I truly believed he would have stopped both of them on the same night. Even was dumb enough to say it out loud. I would have never had 10-15K to ride in that lane.

A few months later I sold that male and he was re-sold (three times what I sold him for the same week) to the inner circle of the dog that made champ above. After they paraded dogs to stop him and couldn't I got a phone call that I will never forget. First offering a shit load of money for any and every thing I had bred like him and secondly and far more memorable, "You were right, he would have stopped both those dogs on the same night".

Short story long, my bank would never let me call out the big money guys so I have to remain in the lane I can afford. In my heart of hearts I believe a good dog can compete in the fast, faster and fastest lanes. I also think if I did have the buckets full of money I would drop my rates to prove the better dog, but since I don't have a bucket full of money for the dogs that would be my personal speculation.

So I agree, know your lane, don't cry up or cry down based on $$$$$$. EWO

[EGK]

Yep EWO money definitely doesn't equate to quality and also true about it going up when paying others. Not to mention travel and hotel expenses.

[EGK]

Truth

[Black Hand]

gambling is gambling. dogs, other sporting events, casino, etc. it's some who got it and some who don't. Sometimes you win big sometimes you lose more than you can afford. It's not a dog thing, it's just a people thing. Bet big to win big. Everyone understands this and that's why people put up high stakes regardless of what their bank account says. Some people are more responsible(or irresponsible) than others.

[Black Hand]

Another option is to put your winnings back into the dog. If you're successful then your available funds should rise. 1,500 turns into 3000, 3,000 turns into 6,000 and so on. Bill money is bill money, you don't dab into it. Maybe your dog funds should be taken more seriously also and do not take from it.

Guess it just depends on the individual. If I was that strapped for cash maybe I should reconsider even having a yard of dogs to care for and feed. A vet bill can climb up there too lol

[Jrbulldogs]

500-5000 is all the same lane. It's not hard to come up with $5000. A "working man" should be making atleast $600 a week. Save your money and make sacrifices otherwise don't race at all.

Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next. Don't bitch and complain.lmao dude goes hard

[EWO]

Agree here a lot. Being responsible and irresponsible. I have been both. I have let things pass that I felt really good about because the finances were not right basically making a responsible type decision. And on the other hand I have left home with light bill money, house payment money and next weeks gas and grocery money and every thing I could put together in 8-10 weeks and let it ride on a dog, basically being irresponsible. Looking back from my forties to my twenties, I would now call it more dumb than irresponsible, but perspectives change with age.

We camped our money together and bet on three we took. I bet everything I had split on the three. We were killing the first one, it was over, the other was just about RIP and in the process I bet more than I had and we quit on top. Next match we just got bit down by a freak mouth dog and had to pick up. Third match Ch. Angel saved the day with an awesome performance. One win and two losses left me with barely enough money for gas home. In my forties that does not happen, in my twenties things are different.

So as it has been said, gambling is gambling. Three or four thousand may be nothing to one but the world to another. Gambling with 'house' money (previous winnings) is nothing compared to gambling with the house payment.

EWO





gambling is gambling. dogs, other sporting events, casino, etc. it's some who got it and some who don't. Sometimes you win big sometimes you lose more than you can afford. It's not a dog thing, it's just a people thing. Bet big to win big. Everyone understands this and that's why people put up high stakes regardless of what their bank account says. Some people are more responsible(or irresponsible) than others.