Fuente Fuente Opus X Forbidden X + 1 for raffle, to benefit the American Red Cross

**Kayakinboy** · 09-29-2005, 10:03 AM

are you doing two of these?

**Jonsey5484** · 09-29-2005, 10:05 AM

WTF?!?!?!?!?!

**CoventryCat86** · 09-29-2005, 10:15 AM

How do we know who has the earliest postmark on the envelope for your tiebreaker rule? That's not a very good way to do a tiebreaker.

There's still an awful lot of room for shenanigans here with YOU assigning the numbers. For instance if I were to enter, you'd give me 44 or 1

and then assign 2 or 43 to the next entrant

This whole thing of YOU assigning numbers is just about as bad as you alledgely drawing envelopes out of a hat.

How do you figure that under your present set up that justinphilly & disilluzion have a 50-50 chance to win? I guess you're not a math wiz are you? Right now disilluzion has a better chance of winning than justinphilly. If you refuse to accept this then you're not anywhere as near intelligent as you give yourself credit for.

**TheSilentChamber** · 09-29-2005, 10:29 AM

Yeah that whoever is closest is kinda fucked up.

**CoventryCat86** · 09-29-2005, 10:38 AM

I'm tellin' ya, this guy is only posting up this because he know's damn well I'll point out the "problems" and he can then use this to say "Oh you're just a BULLY, you NEVER have anything good to say, you're ALWAYS NEGATIVE, you chase people around and hassle them.....blah blah blah...."

corona gigante is no dummy so you're not going to convince me that he was stupid to the fact that there are HUGE FLAWS in this latest proposal and he knows damned well that I'd be the only one calling him on it.

AND, if I were to ignore him, he figures he'd build his "rep." here by being such a great guy an' all, offering to raffle off a stick (the Opus xXx) that was GIVEN to him due to yet another blood fued on CigarPass that he got himself involved in with RPB67.

I'm tellin' ya, corona gigante is BAD NEWS, plain and simple and evryone would be wise to steer clear of him and whatever it is he's up to. He's a trouble maker pure and simple........

Like I said, if you want t donate to the Red Cross, write them a check directly.

**Diesel Grinch** · 09-29-2005, 11:06 AM

Am I the only one that feels raffling off a gifted cigar even for a good cause is bad form? Even if the giver said it was ok.

It might just be me but I smoke every cigar that I'm gifted, get from a pass, draft, PIF, or a contest. I do feel it's bad form to do anything else with these cigars.

**Leebo** · 09-29-2005, 11:16 AM

CG is like school in the summertime.......no class!

**godfather** · 09-29-2005, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel Grinch

Am I the only one that feels raffling off a gifted cigar even for a good cause is bad form? Even if the giver said it was ok.

Why wasn't CC's cigar in the auction???? Let's stay consistent here!

Oh man, the irony...and I'm not sure what to think of this either:

He calls out CC the night before:

http://www.cigarsmokers.com/showpost...&postcount=105

Writes a poll about him:

http://www.cigarsmokers.com/t2199-co...ity-check.html

and then smokes one of his cigars the same day....

http://www.cigarsmokers.com/showpost...&postcount=799

EDIT: Fixed Hyperlink

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel Grinch

Am I the only one that feels raffling off a gifted cigar even for a good cause is bad form? Even if the giver said it was ok.

It might just be me but I smoke every cigar that I'm gifted, get from a pass, draft, PIF, or a contest. I do feel it's bad form to do anything else with these cigars.

I know. I'm a regifter!

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. I wasn't exactly bombed the stick. The circumstances surrounding the origin of the raffle are documented for posterity elsewhere. PM me if you want the link.

**Jonsey5484** · 09-29-2005, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

How do we know who has the earliest postmark on the envelope for your tiebreaker rule? That's not a very good way to do a tiebreaker.

There's still an awful lot of room for shenanigans here with YOU assigning the numbers. For instance if I were to enter, you'd give me 44 or 1

and then assign 2 or 43 to the next entrant

This whole thing of YOU assigning numbers is just about as bad as you alledgely drawing envelopes out of a hat.

How do you figure that under your present set up that justinphilly & disilluzion have a 50-50 chance to win? I guess you're not a math wiz are you? Right now disilluzion has a better chance of winning than justinphilly. If you refuse to accept this then you're not anywhere as near intelligent as you give yourself credit for.

Although, if anyone did send their money in for the raffle, they might have a 50-50 chance of winning. There might only be one other person dumb enough to participate! But, if he does get a bunch of idiots to play in his little raffle and everyone gets two chances....then that would mean they had two chances at winning, not a 50-50 chance. What a dumb fuck!

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jonsey5484

Although, if anyone did send their money in for the raffle, they might have a 50-50 chance of winning. There might only be one other person dumb enough to participate! But, if he does get a bunch of idiots to play in his little raffle and everyone gets two chances....then that would mean they had two chances at winning, not a 50-50 chance. What a dumb fuck!

I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.

Two people have entered so far, they have equal chances of winning, so each has a 50% chance. Not so?

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 12:45 PM

Four in a row!

I'm getting worse than Shrill Bill.

Time for lunch!

**Leebo** · 09-29-2005, 12:49 PM

CG, you're a moron, plain and simple....

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

How do we know who has the earliest postmark on the envelope for your tiebreaker rule? That's not a very good way to do a tiebreaker.

There's still an awful lot of room for shenanigans here with YOU assigning the numbers. For instance if I were to enter, you'd give me 44 or 1

and then assign 2 or 43 to the next entrant

This whole thing of YOU assigning numbers is just about as bad as you alledgely drawing envelopes out of a hat.

How do you figure that under your present set up that justinphilly & disilluzion have a 50-50 chance to win? I guess you're not a math wiz are you? Right now disilluzion has a better chance of winning than justinphilly. If you refuse to accept this then you're not anywhere as near intelligent as you give yourself credit for.

Bill, you're really clutching at straws here. You think you can still see flaws in my procedure for determining the winner, but you don't seem to be willing to offer solutions or even to define the problem clearly enough for me to fix it.

The tiebreaker rule is the first one I came up with that seemd fair. That it acts to encourage people to get their entires in earlier rather than later is obviously an attractive feature, but if you can offer an alternative, I would like to hear it.

Please explain how diz has a better chance of winning than justin. I don't see it. Maybe there's a mistake in the procedure I outlined or maybe I just didn't make it clear enough. BTW, I have no idea who either of these guys are and I think they would probably tell you the same thing.

I think I see what you mean about assigning you 44 or 1 and assigning someone else 43 and 2. That would make a difference to your chance of winning but it doesn't seem like a very significant difference and, if I understand your point, it would only come into play if none of the other assigned numbers come up in the lottery drawing. The chance of that happening decreases as the number of entrants increases.

Tell you what. Say you'll enter and I'll let you pick your own number, so long as it's not already assigned. You have to promise me that if you win, you'll not tell any lies about the contents of the package I send you.

I think what you've missed is that in some ways the best possible outcome for me is that you enter and win. Not because I think you might stop post-stalking me (although I can't say I would miss it much) but that it would be pretty conclusive evidence of my integrity. I don't particularly care how many times you call me a POS or whatever--water off a duck's back, mate--I've been called worse than that by better than you--but I would be deeply wounded if I thought you doubted my integrity.

If you don't see that, maybe you're not anywhere as near intelligent as you give yourself credit for being.

**TheSilentChamber** · 09-29-2005, 11:03 AM

Out of 50 numbers, givin any number was drawn at random and one persons number was 14 and the other persons number was 27, If a number is drawn between 1-19 the guy who is 14 wins, if a number between 20 and 50 wins the guy who is 27 wins. This gives the man with the number fourteen 19 chances to win, but the guy with the number twenty-seven 30 chances to win. See the flaw?

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by TheSilentChamber

Out of 50 numbers, givin any number was drawn at random and one persons number was 14 and the other persons number was 27, If a number is drawn between 1-19 the guy who is 14 wins, if a number between 20 and 50 wins the guy who is 27 wins. This gives the man with the number fourteen 19 chances to win, but the guy with the number twenty-seven 30 chances to win. See the flaw?

OK I get it now.

This is only a problem if none of the assigned numbers comes up in the lottery, but then it's a major issue.

Where's that forehead-slapping icon when you need one?

Any suggestions?

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

I would scrap the "closest number" logic.

I suggest:
If a number does not come up in the lottery, everyone keeps their numbers and moves on to the next day, rinse, repeat. This works out to an equal chance for all players, so long as there are less than 44 participants.

That's good. Thanks!

**TheSilentChamber** · 09-29-2005, 11:47 AM

If you want to stick with the lottery idea you could wait till you get all entries before assigning numbers, then say you get 4 entries, you could assign numbers 1-4 in the order in which they were recived, then repeat them, so person would would have 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, and 41. Person would would have 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, and 42. Odds are you would come up with some scrap numbers at the end where you could not repeat a full cycle, I would just leave those numbers out and if it is one of those have a secondary lottery number you would go to. Like first you would go off the first number drawn, if it lands on say 42 and nobody has that number go to the second number drawn.

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by TheSilentChamber

If a number is drawn between 1-19 the guy who is 14 wins, if a number between 20 and 50 wins the guy who is 27 wins.

It's not just one number that's drawn. The game is pick 5, so five numbers between 1 and 44 are drawn. What I originally meant was that the winner would be whoever's number was closest to one of the five numbers drawn in the Lottery.

I still like the idea of going with the next day's drawing if no assigned ticket numbers show up in Saturday's draw. It's a lot purer than doing it by numerical differences.

Thanks again.

**CoventryCat86** · 09-29-2005, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

Bill, you're really clutching at straws here. You think you can still see flaws in my procedure for determining the winner, but you don't seem to be willing to offer solutions or even to define the problem clearly enough for me to fix it.

The tiebreaker rule is the first one I came up with that seemd fair. That it acts to encourage people to get their entires in earlier rather than later is obviously an attractive feature, but if you can offer an alternative, I would like to hear it.

Please explain how diz has a better chance of winning than justin. I don't see it. Maybe there's a mistake in the procedure I outlined or maybe I just didn't make it clear enough. BTW, I have no idea who either of these guys are and I think they would probably tell you the same thing.

I think I see what you mean about assigning you 44 or 1 and assigning someone else 43 and 2. That would make a difference to your chance of winning but it doesn't seem like a very significant difference and, if I understand your point, it would only come into play if none of the other assigned numbers come up in the lottery drawing. The chance of that happening decreases as the number of entrants increases.

Tell you what. Say you'll enter and I'll let you pick your own number, so long as it's not already assigned. You have to promise me that if you win, you'll not tell any lies about the contents of the package I send you.

I think what you've missed is that in some ways the best possible outcome for me is that you enter and win. Not because I think you might stop post-stalking me (although I can't say I would miss it much) but that it would be pretty conclusive evidence of my integrity. I don't particularly care how many times you call me a POS or whatever--water off a duck's back, mate--I've been called worse than that by better than you--but I would be deeply wounded if I thought you doubted my integrity.

If you don't see that, maybe you're not anywhere as near intelligent as you give yourself credit for being.

"Clutching at straws" you stupid sonofabitch, SilentChamber was kind enough to explain your stupidity to you but not until you attacked me YET AGAIN. You were DEAD WRONG when you stated that if there are only two guys in the auction, one with #14 and one with #27 that they both have a 50-50 shot of winning. Reread TheSilentChamber's post which is written in plain and simple English, so simple that a 6th grader can grasp the concept because as he pointed out, the guy with #14 only has a 20 (well he said 19 but he meant 20

) in 44 chance of winning while the guy with #27 has a 24 in 44 chance in winning. That is NOT "50-50" unless your calculator is broken. The guy with #14 has a 45-55 chance of winning and the guy with #27 has a 55-45 chance of winning. If you can't understand that, write the numbers 1 - 44 on a sheet of paper and follow that up by putting the name of the winner next to each number. It's highly unlikely that in your continued quest of wanting to start trouble with me you will ever see that I'm right and you're wrong but that shouldn't surprise anyone here since you're too arrogant and too much of an asshole to ever admit you're wrong.

Sorry corona gigante, it's not my responsibility to fix your auction for you. LMAO, you don't see how assigning the number 1 or 44 to someone and 2 or 43 to another is a problem? HOLY crap man, you're either REALLY STUPID or my guess is you just want troll for trouble.

My suggestion is don't do your auction at all. There are so many problems with it:

1. Just about everyone here and on CigarPass as well as many members from Club Stogie think you're a complete asshole, you've created that reputation ALL ON YOUR OWN with your shitty attitude and continued attacks on me and others. This is a bad time for you to try and salvage your reputation which is so far in the toilet, you're beyond hope.
2. You're auctioning off GIFTED cigars and I know you've tried to justify this but IMO you can't
3. The Partagas Salamone is a fake, you know it, you were told this, you acknowledged this, said you wouldn't pass it along YET YOU DID ANYWAY.

When you're WRONG, you continue with your attacks and smart assed comments, that's pretty arrogant and stupid.

Keep digging..................

**Corona Gigante** · 09-29-2005, 03:56 PM

I strongly resent being accused of "knowlingly (sic) passing off" a fake cuban when I've taken pains all along to explain that, even though as far as I can tell it is the real deal, it should be considered as a "bonus mystery cigar."

With regard to the vendor, I have heard one unsubstantiated third hand negative report--and not from Bill, I might add--when I asked him at the time for his opinion he told me he had never used them. I agreed not to repeat the story I heard but I would have to say it was very far from conclusive and did not involve my source directly.

For whatever it is worth, my own experience with this source has been completely satisfactory. I have spoken to other people who have also been completely satisfied, and I have read comments from various satisifed users on another cigar board. I understand that discussion of sources in public is frowned upon, but I am happy to discuss this matter more fully privately.

And in addition, if I had wanted to knowlingly pass off a fake, don't you think I would have claimed to have gotten it from one of the "approved" sources? I'm sure we could all list several quite easily. I have been nothing but open and above board from the beginning of this sorry affair.