Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
what do you think is fair and what do you have at risk?
I have nothing at risk. I've met Tom a couple of times and have told multiple people that I think he's a very nice guy. I've sent him money a few times when he was short online. I've never met Jungleman.
- Previous cross-booked action - very very clear that this still stands.
- As for other action it really depends if the guys on Team Durrrr (TD) just started raising objections. If we'd had this debate 18 months ago, we would have either decided that all bets stand or that some of them are nulled if play doesn't restart within, say, 6 months. If we'd decided the latter then I suspect the arbitrators, caring about the poker community and taking in to account that Tom felt no obligations to FTP would have had the option to force them to play. I don't have sympathy for anyone from TD who waited 18 months and then said 'Hey! They haven't played for 18 months! Bets don't count'
- Jungleman still hasn't been paid his FTP money, yet he's playing online poker. Maybe Tom was begging Jungleman to play and the latter said 'Hey man would love to but need to wait for FTP to pay me!, but you're not claiming that. Even if he didn't have the money, I doubt Jungleman would have had trouble getting staked to play Tom, especially once Stars paid (which was pretty early on). Tom didn't have money on FTP and was playing high stakes games in Macau (where he could have played on Stars from).
- Tom spent a bunch of time in Macau! I think he also plays in touraments around the world (I don't follow this very closely) You make it out like he's a wanted man in every country outside of the USA! If he wanted to finish the challenge on Stars, if he wanted to play on eurosites, if he wanted to keep playing online poker he could have. He
chose not to.
- Your method of resolving the sidebet is a joke right?
"I think side bets are off. Or maybe amount of bet times percent played times the odds of the bet."
OK so they should settle for 30% of the bet amount because they were 30% of the way in, even though one guy was up 30 buyins, but if they were 90% of the way in and Tom was up by 1 big blind then TD should get 90% of the sidebet? Do you see why people think there are 20 smarter posters than you in this thread?
If you
did decide to settle the sidebet, why not make some reasonable assumptions and work from there. e.g assume they are evenly matched, find out what their sd/100 was and run a variance simulation. I guess you'll see that Jungleman wins 90%+ of the time. N.B assuming that they are evenly matched when Jungleman was up over 50 buyins in HU play v Tom is rather generous to TD!
- I think all future crossbooks are still on. This is the closest decision for me but unless I am presented with some new facts I think it's still very clear. What if people bet on Jungleman because they thought he'd keep grinding online while Tom was likely to spend a bunch of his time playing live games? FYI I'm pretty sure many people took that in to consideration. Tom took 18 months to get 80% of the way through his previous challenge so TJ were totally within their rights to think he might not be as committed to this one.
- Since Alaei said that this forum is mainly TJ, it follows that much/most of TD are live players. I assume lots of them are friends with Tom, or in fairly regular contact with him. If they were collectively owed 400k*, as opposed to the other way, money which as you point out might not have meant much to them when they made the bet but might have post BF, there is a very good chance they would have pushed Tom to complete the challenge. And there's also a very good chance that Tom would have just finished the challenge in a month (They played 6,000 hands in the first day) if he'd started winning. If we followed your logic he could just keep delaying and delaying until some 'act of god' happened. Lots of people thought BF would come at some point in the few years after the challenge started, so it's extremely reasonable to suggest that his constant stalling would have led to either BF or some other 'act of god' occurring.
- You can't refuse to pay people because you think they might not have paid you. If you were worried about this you should have made an escrow. If something very important happened in between making the bet and coming to pay that made you think you wouldn't have gotten paid (DIH is a great example), that's a different scenario.
*guesstimate
Last edited by PartyGirlUK; 09-12-2013 at 05:24 PM.