It does involve you though. These are the faults of Tom, not the faults of the DOJ which is the base of your argument for why you shouldn't have to pay.

Actually in both of your analogies the bets would stand if the games were finished in the same day as they started.

Looking to bet 2k on Sauce. Message me

Do you think i have a valid arguement? You have known me a wile, do you think im just trying to get out of a bet?

I don't understand the point people are trying to make here. The side bets are being discussed, not the main bet between Tom and Jungle.

Besides that, Tom and Jungle agreed to not play pre-BF because of Tom being busy in live games and they made what I thought to be a fair deal to compensate JM for the slowness at the time. Then BF happened.

viffer the angle-shooter! http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/37...ew-pad-975362/

HSNL in 2013: the uneducated hustlers turn to angle-shooting and scamming and the educated ones sling coaching "products". lets do more wire season rankings

Viffer, three things.

i) Please address the repeated questions about Tom's refusal to play for months prior to Black Friday.

ii) Please adderss the repeated questions about Tom's refusal to complete the challenge on Stars, on play money tables or via any other avenue. Note that after Full Tilt went down to the ROW in June 2011, Tom stated that he no longer felt under obligation to Full Tilt.

iii) What exactly are you claiming you don't have to pay for? Do you think prior crossbooked actually is invalid? Do you think the sidebet is totally voided, is still valid, or should be settled at a 'fair' market line based on the standing on Black Friday? Do you think all future crossbooked action is invalid? If so, do you think that crossbooked action between FTP coming back up and the current date is invalid?

if boy genius durrrr has enough of an ego to offer 3-1 to the world on a 50k hand heads up match, this 20+ page thread is going to create a monster. i'd say he's gonna go broke, but he'll always find backing and sponsorship between 6 month thai ladyboy hooking sessions

i) Please address the repeated questions about Tom's refusal to play for months prior to Black Friday.

Doesnt really concern side bettors, but i guess tom and jungle made an agreement in wich tom paid jungle for not playing. They made a deal, both parties agreed to delay things.

ii) Please adderss the repeated questions about Tom's refusal to complete the challenge on Stars, on play money tables or via any other avenue. Note that after Full Tilt went down to the ROW in June 2011, Tom stated that he no longer felt under obligation to Full Tilt.

After full tilt and stars went down i dontt hink anyone could afford to play this challenge, poker world and economy was in shambles. Tom couldnt play from his home.

This is where i think the side bettors and tom and jungle have seperate rules.


iii) What exactly are you claiming you don't have to pay for? Do you think prior crossbooked actually is invalid? Do you think the sidebet is totally voided, is still valid, or should be settled at a 'fair' market line based on the standing on Black Friday? Do you think all future crossbooked action is invalid? If so, do you think that crossbooked action between FTP coming back up and the current date is invalid?

I think side bets are off. Or maybe amount of bet times percent played times the odds of the bet. I think old action stands, to some extent. someone like dog is head cant get paid, where sopmeone like scott siever will. Its a judgment call as to weather they would pay after a three year lapse in time.



what do you think is fair and what do you have at risk?

Yes but when people bet on Tom they are betting on someone who still hasn't finished his challenge with Antonious yet, someone who is going to prioritize other games over the challenge.

It's great to throw Black Friday out as an excuse as to why the challenge isn't over already but that isn't really the case. That was something that made it harder and should obv slow things down but choosing to wait for FTP was Tom's decision. To not be ready to play and be practicing was his decision. If this challenge wasn't a priority to him to finish people who bet on him shouldn't be shocked and use this as an excuse as to why they think they should be able to get out of their bet. Especially when the 1st durrrr challenge still hasn't been finished.

not if cimcumstances prevented tom from playing,, he couldnt login and play wile taking a **** in his home. he loved doing that. Just because he could of flown to play or even if he did the time he would of needed to do so is alot and unreasonable to expect.
Y Yeah and i dont think anyone is argueing bets should be off on either side, there was no act of god to justify that.

LOL

It's completely reasonable to expect someone who often flies all around the world to continue to do so and even more so now that outside the US is the only place he can continue to play online poker.

Not only that he's obligated to do so after offering, accepting, and starting a challenge with jungle for millions. The fact that durrrr didn't do those things is kinda your tough luck for betting on him. You bet on a guy that takes his sweet time on challenges then to claim he's not up to hunl industry standards cause he's taking his sweet time on this one is disingenuous and scummy if that's your basis for trying to get out of a bet. Black Friday was a hinderance but Tom is the one that has drug the challenge out this long and chose not to keep up with his hunl game and this is the person that you bet on.

you must be bored, what city are you in ill send over a good hooker for you. Whens the last time you got laid?

Great rebuttal. 2 nights ago

IMO, Viffer have some valid points (not saying he's the only one making valid points)

I think almost any judge in Europe (maybe not in the UK) would call the bets off based on changing circumstances. However, i don't know if the same applies too the States, since the law is so different there.

Also, some people itt are forgeting that durrrr didn't want to play the challenge/online poker pos-bf to not devalue FTP (both durrrr and his challenge were valuable assets for FTP) and decrease the chances players getting paid.

Hi Viff.

Is there a line on sauce vs WCG?

Quick point re: judges-there's a huge difference between whether a bet is legally enforceable (most aren't) and whether the gambler's code/basic fairness means a bet should be enforced. A bettor on durrrrr in most jurisdictions could probably just reneg for absolutely no reason and still have a judge rule for him, that doesn't make it ok

Tom had no money on FTP when BF happened, and Dan could have afforded it even after BF.

Even if Dan couldn't have afforded it, he could have been backed for it very easily.

So both players could afford it. Even if one player couldn't, it wouldn't matter. The player that couldn't afford to pay for his bet, an obligation he put himself under, would be at fault. The side bet was theoretically escrowed, and if a player couldn't continue the challenge, he would forfeit the bet and lose the entire escrow of 500k or 1.5m.

Not being able to pay is not a legitimate excuse.

I wasn't around at all yesterday and will be sporadically around today for replies but I wanted to post some more of my thoughts on this matter. There needs to be less talk on what is right between Tom and Dan and more talk on what is right between side bettors vs side bettors. I firmly believe that any "challenge" that proceeds at this point is completely different than the challenge we bet on 3 years ago. That point is hardly even debatable for me. No bets in my opinion should still be expected to be honored going forward from back then. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here but you have to look at things from different angles. When black friday went down this challenge was considered dead by basically everyone, including Tom and Dan. That's why they took measures to get Dan's escrow refunded. All side bets were off and the only thing really up for questioning was what was fair to do with the cross book action for the hands that had been played up until that point (for the record: a majority of my side action is on cross books). We made these bets 3 years ago. To think that all of a sudden because they decide to continue this challenge these bets are back on? That is crazy talk in my opinion. What if I had gone broke by now? What if my opponents have gone broke since then? What if my opponents have completely quit poker after black friday and invested all their money/don't have much. I understand that they are currently "winning" in this challenge, but had they been losing I wouldn't be surprised if some people were nowhere to be found, or had excuses of their own. People's lives and finances change so fast in the gambling world. I know for me personally 3 years ago I was a single guy and now I am married and have a baby boy and a 10 year old son that my wife and I took in to live with us. By no means am I trying to "get out of a bet". I am still very much in the high stakes gambling world and gamble high on a nearly daily basis. My point is that it puts me at an extreme disadvantage that since I am still in the poker world I should be expected to honor all bets from back then when I don't know if I would be getting that same treatment had the roles been reversed.

At this point I really don't care what happens between Tom and Dan in regards to the challenge. I didn't bet on this match. I was contacted by the people I made cross books with to work a settlement after black friday but I strongly believed that while they had a point, I also had a point that the match was only 1/3 finished and it's somewhat unreasonable to collect in full on a match that hasn't completed. I didn't get much resistance from them. Now that they are playing again they expect these cross books to still be on and they really have no ground to stand on with that argument. No way no how will any panel of experienced gambling arbitrators rule in that favor. I believe the same goes with the final outcome bets. Those would be considered dead. The only thing that is still currently up for debate is the cross books of the hands that have already been played in my opinion. And again, I will repeat, most of my action is cross books so this isn't really a self serving opinion.

I am really not sure what is a fair settlement to be honest. I would need to talk to some people who have no involvement in this matter and have been around a long enough time that they might have some good insight/opinions on what to do with such a unique gambling situation like this. I am sure people on Dan's side feel 100% of cross book action should be honored and that is obviously the maximum they could ever expect. The minimum would be zero. I am not sure where the right number lies.

Lets please try to stop talking about durrrr's actions pre BF or whether he has been practicing or not or if jungleman is sharp or not. The fact that durrrr was stalling pre BF, or if he was just busy in Macau and this was explained to jungleman is irrelevant at this point. I know you guys keep saying that BF is not a valid point because durrrr stopped playing a few months before then but the fact is that had BF not happened this challenge would have eventually concluded and there would have been no reason for anyone to expect there to be a cancellation. This is where we are now and we need to focus on the technicalities of the side bets, not what is right between Tom and Dan. I called jungleman yesterday as I was leaving the house after I saw his comment on here and explained all this to him and he didn't disagree. I told him that I believe he got screwed the most out of all this and he is entitled to something from Tom but that has nothing to do with the side bets. He agreed but said that the cross books of completed hands shouldn't be ignored though, and I agreed. That's where we left things.

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

what durrrr does in his free time is relevant to you as what he chooses to do will effect you're bet one way or another. Let's just say the DOJ never took away online poker from the US, if durrrr had continued to dodge the challenge like people was suggesting and continue travelling overseas to macau, do you really think this is irrelevant and won't effect you're side of the bet? Like you have said being #1 in the world takes lots of practice, if he's intentionally avoiding online poker then you're bet is being effected. What about if he suddenly goes off the rails and begins to party/do drugs in his spare time... does this effect you're bet if he's playing drugged up to the eye balls?

The DOJ took away the right for both players as residents of the USA, both of them got the same treatment, the only difference was durrrr decided that his time was better spent playing live games in macau and jungle decided to take a break from online poker and go travel and party for a bit before moving to europe to continue playing online.

I think i'd agree with what you're saying viffer if durrrr (or jungle for that matter) had decided to sit it out and stay in the US due to other commitments like family/friends etc. (this could have been discussed right after BF happened) That would be completely understandable which would make you're argument a lot more valid.

I don't get why you text jungle to say you've got action and then post here trying to suggest the bet is a wash? what's made you change you're mind? waiting until jungle and durrrr are about to start playing again comes across as quite scummy

ALAEI would it have been reasonable for someone to void the bets based on Tom played something like 3,000 hands in 6 months prior to BF? Does that satisfy you 'not what I bet on' clause?

THIS^^ is so obviously all that needs to be said wrt to Viffer's completely absurd argument about what a judge or bookie or whoever else would have to say about this bet. A good number of the absolute most qualified people in the world to judge this situation have already weighed in on it in this thread and their opinions have been pretty unanimous.

When FWF and Ansky and ZJ and CTS (amongst many others) are all telling you you are dead wrong about a gambling-ethics related issue, you are ****ing wrong. If you wanted judges involved you should have written a contract. For a wager between two gamblers without a contract, other well-known, respected, reputable gamblers are basically the supreme court.

Looking to do 100-1k flips msg me if interested