Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Discussion of Durrrr challenge thread (former September **** thread) Discussion of Durrrr challenge thread (former September **** thread)

09-12-2013 , 12:38 PM
viffer has to be trolling everyone. There is no way that someone can possibly be this dumb.
09-12-2013 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
You do realize Tom is the one that issued this challenge right? I don't care how much gambling experience you have, if you think Tom isn't obligated to finish this challenge in a reasonable amount of time you're either a complete moron or you're being a scumbag and trying to freeroll everyone.
Im not saying tom should or shouldnt finish the challenge, im saying it doesnt matter to people who bet on the side.


Quote:
I'm sure you're right about that. But being a better hustler than anyone in this thread doesn't make you smarter than them or more qualified to discuss something you actually seem to know very little about. You just keep making the same irrelevant points over and over.
So if what you say is true i guess i decide what the relevant points are? Or should we let you decide what they are?
09-12-2013 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman
can we bet on what they think?
Why dont we bet on what peoples who judge and arbitrate things professionally think? Is that to logical?
09-12-2013 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Why dont we bet on what peoples who judge and arbitrate things professionally think? Is that to logical?
Because these people wouldnt waste their time on something like this
09-12-2013 , 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Just curious what do you think? Am i delusional? Do you think what i am saying holds any air?

Not weather im wrong or right, just weather i have a valid arguement.
i think u def have valid points u are making and i do not think that u are simply looking for an excuse to not pay.
i think that the problem/gray area in ur argument is im not sure this can be compared to a sports bet.

my gut instinct is that in the case of a xbook you should have the right to cancel all future action and only owe what ur currently stuck. i think there is def valid grounds to cancel the bet on who would win the match.

u def have a valid point that when u placed the bet u were betting on a completely diff person/match then is currently going to finish the challenge, which may be grounds to cancel the match bet.

i dont see any grounds to cancel any $$ lost on xbook from past sessions.

i am not familiar enough with the timeline prior to black friday to comment on the argument that tom didnt make a good enough effort to finish the challenge in a timely fashion before BF.

i think there are ppl way smarter then me that are more qualified to comment on this, but i dont think ur just trying to come up with an excuse to welch.
09-12-2013 , 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman
can we bet on what they think?

Is there a reason viffer is still fighting this nonsense other than Alaei started it up again? Does he realize even Alaei thinks viffer is wrong?
since u quoted my post are u asking me those questions?
surely ur not asking ME if ur allowed to wager on their opinions.

im also unsure why u would be asking me why viffer is doing anything.
i merely suggested 3 ppl whom i think are very intelligent and universally respected in the HSNL community.
09-12-2013 , 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverboatking
i think u def have valid points u are making and i do not think that u are simply looking for an excuse to not pay.
i think that the problem/gray area in ur argument is im not sure this can be compared to a sports bet.

my gut instinct is that in the case of a xbook you should have the right to cancel all future action and only owe what ur currently stuck. i think there is def valid grounds to cancel the bet on who would win the match.

u def have a valid point that when u placed the bet u were betting on a completely diff person/match then is currently going to finish the challenge, which may be grounds to cancel the match bet.

i dont see any grounds to cancel any $$ lost on xbook from past sessions.

i am not familiar enough with the timeline prior to black friday to comment on the argument that tom didnt make a good enough effort to finish the challenge in a timely fashion before BF.

i think there are ppl way smarter then me that are more qualified to comment on this, but i dont think ur just trying to come up with an excuse to welch.
DING!!!!! DING!!!!! Ding!!!!!!!!

And if i didnt argue this i would be freerolling my self.
09-12-2013 , 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Im not saying tom should or shouldnt finish the challenge, im saying it doesnt matter to people who bet on the side.
Well of course it doesn't matter to you because you don't feel like paying your bets. I'm sure if durrrr was up 1m in the challenge you would be in here begging the people you bet with to void the bet and call it a draw because "that's the fair thing to do for jungleman"...right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
So if what you say is true i guess i decide what the relevant points are? Or should we let you decide what they are?
Well that would require you having some knowledge about the timeline of events that has gone on for the 3+ years this challenge has been drug out. However you seem to have little to no information other than Black Friday, which was an act of god of course, has caused durrrr to not be able to play online poker from his home country so therefore all bets are null and void according to you.

You have been made aware of all the relevant points and you choose to ignore them because they don't serve your purpose.
09-12-2013 , 12:58 PM
The ones that bet on durrrr will always have the sportsbook argument to fall back on. The reality is they are probably right, I could definitely see a sportsbook calling this a push. However, it's a bit suspicious to bring this all up now and at the same time not super relevant as these type of bets aren't generally held to the hypothetical grading standards of a hypothetical sportsbook.

The ones that bet on Jungleman will always have the fact that the contest isn't over. "We bet on 50k hands and we deserve them all!" Completely understandable. They obviously feel like they have a rather large edge and have every right to ride that until the challenge is completed.

The one thing that I do continually get stuck on in all of this is the spirit of the original side bet action (nothing to do with Tom and Cates). When we (meaning this community) bet on something but don't outline every possible scenario we usually fall back on this mythical "spirit of the bet" question. Did anyone who bet on either side bet on this current iteration of the challenge? No. Would anyone who bet on either side not have had a time limit clause/buyout scenario if they were made aware of the fact that this could take 3 years? I'm guessing no.

If the results were currently +/- $0 after 15k hands, would people that bet on durrrr be allowed to just call this thing a wash and walk away from the bet (assuming they either crossbooked or bet at even on the outcome of the match)? I feel like they'd have a legit argument for not having to wait out the rest of the challenge and Jungleman bettors would just have to take it despite losing some equity. Maybe that's crazy, but if I had bet on Jungleman in that scenario I'd have no problem with the guy I bet against just calling it a wash. I'd be pissed at Tom, but not the guy I bet against. He didn't bet on THIS contest and neither did I.

In the actual situation with durrrr down $1.2m I'd be looking to settle at the current numbers if I had either side. If I bet durrrr and think he's the greatest of all of time in hands 40k - 50k of a 50k hand heads up match oh well I lose that equity. If I bet Jungleman and think he's the greatest of all time all the time oh well I lose that equity. If you had a sidebet that durrrr would be up $1 after 50k hands you should lose 30% of that bet (15k of 50k hands played ya?) IMO. Also I would have done all of this long ago. It's a little stickier now that they are about to play more hands, but I don't think side bettors have to stick with the action at this point if they don't want to. It's not the contest they bet on.

We also aren't differentiating between the side bettors and the participants of the challenge well enough IMO. Ansky made a good point that the side bets should mirror the participants action so they should be treated equally, but I don't think this is the case. Jungleman is getting hosed way more here than anyone that bet on jungleman. In that same vein, people betting durrrr looking to settle up, buyout now shouldn't be viewed with as much venom as durrrr in this spot.

Back to the spirit of the bet question: didn't Tom profoundly claim he was the best HU player in the world and could prove it against anyone other than Galfond over 50k hands? He even offered to lay 3:1 to anyone brave enough to accept the challenge.

Well, Jungleman accepted the challenge under those terms and has every right to have it play all the way out. If it doesn't then durrrr should just forfeit the side bet action and go on his way.

Last edited by tdomeski; 09-12-2013 at 01:08 PM.
09-12-2013 , 01:05 PM
Noone would have the right to cancel the bet if they were tied after 15k hands, but I would expect most parties to just agree on a wash.
09-12-2013 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
The ones that bet on durrrr will always have the sportsbook argument to fall back on. The reality is they are probably right, I could definitely see a sportsbook calling this a push. However, it's a bit suspicious to bring this all up now and at the same time not super relevant as these type of bets aren't generally held to the hypothetical grading standards of a hypothetical sportsbook.
I brought this up over a year ago, alot of people knew my stance on this. I just thought it was time to make it public when it looked like things might start playing again. I tried to settle with everyone privatley.

If the arguement would always be here, and i think there is any chance they would use the same arguement if roles were reversed it would be silly for me not too?


What about my bet with dog is head, is he freerolling me from here?
09-12-2013 , 01:14 PM
imo tbe ppl calling viff scummy are being a bit harsh.

he hasnt said hes not going to honor his bets hes just arguing his position.

he might be completely wrong, and in general i tend to just agree with whatever ariel says cuz hes one of the smartest most rational ppl ive ever met, and i should also point out that i like him a whole lot more then viffer.

viff has been around poker forever n gambles pretty huge. has anyone ever heard any stories of him scumming anyone in all that time? if not ppl should stop dismissing him as some scumbag chronic angleshooter.

Last edited by riverboatking; 09-12-2013 at 01:24 PM.
09-12-2013 , 01:24 PM
anyone who bet on this challenge after the way his first challenge with Antonious went knew what they were possibly in for w/ durrrr....none of that is a good argument.
09-12-2013 , 01:41 PM
Nice post, RBK.

I'm just floored by some of the crap being posted.

Last edited by RichGangi; 09-12-2013 at 01:42 PM. Reason: LucidDream is clueless imo.
09-12-2013 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
DING!!!!! DING!!!!! Ding!!!!!!!!

And if i didnt argue this i would be freerolling my self.

Your horse paused during the race to eat some grass. The race isn't finished yet, but we all know who won. I don't think you have any validity in your argument and you admit, on two occasions at least ITT, that you're arguing because it would be stupid of you not to argue.

The conclusion is that you don't even believe in your own argument. Noone else does either. It's a crappy argument.

P.S You rock.
09-12-2013 , 02:03 PM
i made a pretty glaring typo in my first post.
i said there might be grounds for bets made on the overall winner of the match to be cancelled.

THAT IS NOT CORRECT. all bets on the overall winner obv should stand.

i however believe ppl that made xbook wagers should be allowed to settle for how much theyre down and not continue xbooking on rest of match, unless in original terms they specified the xbook was for the entire match and ppl couldnt cancel from session to session.

edit: i also REALLY wasnt trying to take a side or anything like that, was just saying i thought ppl were being too hard on viff, esp when to my knowledge he hadnt said at any point he wasnt planning on honoring his bets.
if anyone who has action on tom flat out says theyre not paying i think that is super scummy.

double edit: as usual i also agree with dani and ariel 100%.

triple edit: my opinion should hold zero weight in this matter. i had no intention of involving myself, and only offered an opinion cuz viffer asked me directly what i thought.

Last edited by riverboatking; 09-12-2013 at 02:27 PM.
09-12-2013 , 02:13 PM
On my phone so sorry ahead of time

the sportsbook analogy for alot of reasons is messed main one is b/c those rules are announced ahead of time so are agreed to. If a sportsbook had no announced policy on injuries in a bball game and cancelled a basketball game bet b/c lebron got hurt 1 minute in and then said this wasn't what people were betting on I think everyone would realize that's messed up even if the book said "hey if a starting pitcher goes down early we void the bets and lebron is at least as important as a starter"...you can't make arguments by analogy to clearly stated grounds for cancellation of bets: there's a reason sportsbooks have listed rules and not just a "if it seems the match didn't go down the way people thought it would maybe we can cancel" clause (other than for suspected cheating obv)
09-12-2013 , 02:21 PM
Lebron wasnt injured, he was arrested, put in jail for 3 years, game was susspended. And lebron came back weighing 400 pounds cause he couldnt goto the gym. and then expected to play on his release.


Is it vallid to say its unreasonable to expect someone to leave the country to play?
09-12-2013 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Lebron wasnt injured, he just went on strike once he started losing, was banned from playing in one venue, and spent 19 months playing dodgeball.
FYP
09-12-2013 , 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer

Is it vallid to say its unreasonable to expect someone to leave the country to play?
For a multiple million $ bet, when both are young and able to do so, and have actually done so, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.
09-12-2013 , 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
FYP
Does tom have an unfair advantage if he chooses not to leave his house to travel the world and dedicate his life to poker? He chose after black friday to give up his thrown as the best in world and do other things cause his freedoms were taken away. after black friday i dont think he was ever considered an online pro ?


They finish the basketball game, but the people who made bets on the game get refund. If lebron got hurt in game then obv bets would stand. But since some thing unrelated to game caused the stoppage and long delay bets are cancled.

Last edited by viffer; 09-12-2013 at 02:37 PM.
09-12-2013 , 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Does tom have an unfair advantage if he chooses not to leave his house to travel the world and dedicate his life to poker? He chose after black friday to give up his thrown as the best in world and do other things cause his freedoms were taken away. after black friday i dont think he was ever considered an online pro ?
He had an obligation to jungle to finish the challenge and had the option to do so on Stars immediately after Black Friday. He decided he thought it would be best for him and jungle both to wait for FTP to come back up, why do you think now that it's back up he no longer needs to fulfill that obligation and finish the challenge?
09-12-2013 , 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
He had an obligation to jungle to finish the challenge and had the option to do so on Stars immediately after Black Friday. He decided he thought it would be best for him and jungle both to wait for FTP to come back up, why do you think now that it's back up he no longer needs to fulfill that obligation and finish the challenge?

Dont care, doesnt involve me. Thats between jungle and tom.


IM done responding to you btw, you an idiot.
09-12-2013 , 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Does tom have an unfair advantage if he chooses not to leave his house to travel the world and dedicate his life to poker? He chose after black friday to give up his thrown as the best in world and do other things cause his freedoms were taken away. after black friday i dont think he was ever considered an online pro ?
Viffer, your focus on post BF is tilting. Tom was already avoiding Jungle prior to BF so your point is largely invalid - although people have already mentioned this to you.
09-12-2013 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Lebron wasnt injured, he was arrested, put in jail for 3 years, game was susspended. And lebron came back weighing 400 pounds cause he couldnt goto the gym. and then expected to play on his release.


Is it vallid to say its unreasonable to expect someone to leave the country to play?
Viff my point wasn't to compare a lebron injury to Black Friday. It was to note that canceling a basketball bet by analogy to baseball betting rules would seem nuts even though there are parallels: the obvious reason is that the "pitcher has to pith 5 innings" rule is announced while the "we all know this bet only makes sense if lebron plays" rule isn't. So though they're both similar occurrences affecting the nature of a bet-upon game, only one is grounds for cancellation

      
m