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 , 07:07 PM
Daniel-

I think you could help get your points across more clearly if you used shorter paragraphs or even some sort of bullet points as opposed to this wall of text.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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.

As I understand it Tom and Dan agreed that the challenge be delayed at this point, but certainly not dead. If it was dead why wasn't there a settlement and why is there talk of them resuming now?

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).

Here you say that as of ~BF all side bets were off which seems to include cross booking on any future action, was that agreed upon between you and whoever you bet with?

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.

If you and whoever you bet with agreed to call the bets off as of BF then of course the bets should not be back on unless agreed to by both parties.

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.

I'm confused as to how any of this is relevant if the bets were called off as of BF. If the bets were not called off then I would say anyone who had a sizable outstanding bet on this challenge and allowed their financial situation to drastically change to the degree that it would affect their ability to pay is basically a welcher. We already discussed that the correct move in that situation would be to try to negotiate a settlement with the opposing party and/or sell off some action if necessary.


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.

So here you are saying you weren't even willing to pay the amount of crossbooked action you were down as of BF because the match wasn't over but now that the match is continuing you seem to want the bet to be off because too much time elapsed? How is that in any way fair or consistent?

I didn't get much resistance from them.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Didn't get much resistance as in they agreed you could hold off on paying what you owed for the xbook until the match completed? In which case it sounds like you are clearly agreeing that your bet is still on as of that point?

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.

How can you have it both ways? It sounds like you didn't want to pay before because the match wasn't complete, and now that the match is resuming you want the action to be off?

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.

Just to be clear again I am not "on Dan's side" (have 0 money on either side), but I am totally befuddled as to how you could even begin to argue that you don't owe 100% of xbook losses up to the point where you are basically unilaterally canceling the bet, assuming your opposing party would be more than happy to continue the xbook.

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.

Clearly it has taken far longer than most people expected, but assuming it does finish, I don't understand where you are drawing a line and not counting it finishing now as "eventually concluding". If they had continued on Stars right after BF do you agree action would still have been on? Is there an exact time at which you decided too much time had passed and did you re-introduce the idea of a settlement with the opposing party at that time?

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 don't know that the distinction you are making between Tom and Dan's bet and the side bets is fair. As I understand it (feel free to correct me if wrong) the spirit of most side bets was to effectively mirror the bet between Tom and Dan. It sounds like you are basically saying "I think Tom made some bad decisions with regard to the handling of this challenge/bet and he should have to own up to them in terms of making Dan whole, but people who bet on Tom should not be held accountable for his actions even though he is the horse they willingly chose."
09-12-2013 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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.
... what makes you so sure?
09-12-2013 , 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
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?
Someone pointed out this post to me as a claim that I have an outstanding bet with you on the Jungleman-Durrrr match. I don't know where you're getting this. Not only have I never made bets with anyone on the Durrrr Challenge, but I don't believe I've ever even spoken to you.

(This is DogIsHead)

Last edited by HaseebQ; 09-12-2013 at 08:28 PM.
09-12-2013 , 09:45 PM
oh thank god habeeb - almost thought the last pure HSNLer left was going to welch on a bet
09-12-2013 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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
Your entire post is full of holes and mistruths, but NLSoldier did a great job of pointing those out.

The above quoted part is on a separate tier of "OMFG, do you actually believe what you are saying?!" though.

Tom and Dan never for a second even considered calling the challenge. In fact Tom was very public about having more faith in FTP than anyone else in the world.

Dan's escrow was refunded because Ivey said he was never going to pay it which would obviously have been blatant theft. Fortunately someone was able to talk sense into him and he made the right decision in the end. There's actually more to the escrow story that made Dan rightfully furious, but the specific story won't aid this conversation any further, so I won't mention it. Returning his escrow was righting potential wrongs.

No one in their right mind ever debated what to do with cross book action up to that point. It is completely undebatable that you owe for your cross book for the hands originally played. <Insert obvious analogy here that really isn't needed because it's so clear cut>
09-12-2013 , 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaseebQ
Someone pointed out this post to me as a claim that I have an outstanding bet with you on the Jungleman-Durrrr match. I don't know where you're getting this. Not only have I never made bets with anyone on the Durrrr Challenge, but I don't believe I've ever even spoken to you.

(This is DogIsHead)
If thats the case, I'm pretty sure he was giving a theoretical situation. Saying you kind of dropped out of the poker world, you would have no repercussions for not paying, but will want to be paid if you win.

I dont think he is actually saying he has a bet with you and certainly the above isnt the case, he was just trying to make a point I believe. This is my read on the situation. Feel free to delete if im wrong
09-12-2013 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeeJustin
Dan's escrow was refunded because Ivey said he was never going to pay it which would obviously have been blatant theft.
The more you know about Ivey...
09-13-2013 , 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPB383
Looking to do 100-1k flips msg me if interested
Find me
09-13-2013 , 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLSoldier
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.
+1.

it certainly seems like viffer, while trying to argue his position, was/is still planning on honoring his bets (which is the reason for my initial response).
anyone trying to argue that previous xbook action should be canceled is crazy.

there is def a case to be made that ppl shouldnt be forced to continue xbooking (what if they can no longer afford it?) but that is really the only point up for debate.
09-13-2013 , 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Level
If thats the case, I'm pretty sure he was giving a theoretical situation. Saying you kind of dropped out of the poker world, you would have no repercussions for not paying, but will want to be paid if you win.

I dont think he is actually saying he has a bet with you and certainly the above isnt the case, he was just trying to make a point I believe. This is my read on the situation. Feel free to delete if im wrong
Haha, you may be right. It just wasn't completely clear from the way he was putting it, so I wanted to be sure.
09-13-2013 , 04:19 AM
So much angleshooting, its ****ing disgusting. I have already payed (was one of the people smart enough to bet on durrrr - at even odds though) what i felt i owed (2 small bets, 500 each).

This challenge is a joke and i cant believe there are people still trying to justify durrrr's actions. I cant even imagine what would have happened if it were jungleman who did what durrrr did.

Its so funny to me how only the live pros believe that their argument is correct. It probably means they've done so much angle shooting that they've forgot about morals and etiquette.

Alaei, in the real world, if people made bets and after 3 years they dont have the money its their own fault and they still are responsible for it.
09-13-2013 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpireMaker2
Find me
Fell asleep and missed every game tnight. #tilt
09-13-2013 , 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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.
If you went broke by now then you owe the money. Pretty simple. Be a better gambler and don't go broke. Same for your opponents. Being a professional gambler and all I am sure you are wagering with guys you know will pay or honor their bets or are you the type that just bets xy and z with any guy you play with or meet.

Of course people lives and finances change in the gambling world but that has nothing to do with honoring a bet. You should honor your side and hopefully if you are a smart man you bet with honorable people.
09-13-2013 , 05:40 AM
Quote:
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.

Well known gamblers, are way different then well kniown poker players.

Cts said he didnt know enough about gambling, but i do respect his opinion.

Zeejustin has been known to argue for his own bennifit, Didnt he spend countless post sticking up for the Epic poker league? Hes biassed

FWF has stated that its valid arguement, weather its right or not is another thing. He is also biassed.

FWF if you were in law class could you argue both sides and make valid points?

Ansky was on national tv sweated the 2k for shoes ( buy the black ones ) and didnt snap buy them, hes mental wellness is at question.


Quote:
So much angleshooting, its ****ing disgusting. I have already payed (was one of the people smart enough to bet on durrrr - at even odds though) what i felt i owed (2 small bets, 500 each).
Who decided what was fair? what did you pay?
09-13-2013 , 06:28 AM
Quote:
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

Gamblers code,

We are sports bettors betting on a sporting event.

Thats exactly what a challenge is, an event.

Who better to judge this then the sports sites that have been making and taking bets for years.

Ariel, would you argue that we arent sports bettors betting on a sporting event?

PLease be openminded as your friends have said that you are. PLease dont dodge certain questions, I think i have reponded and answered all!!


Why didnt anyone respond to Tdomeski or river boats post? You guys would rather pick on the unedumacated one.


ONce again, jungleman has known this is my opinion for over a year, Its nothing new.
09-13-2013 , 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Zeejustin has been known to argue for his own bennifit, Didnt he spend countless post sticking up for the Epic poker league? Hes biassed
I never stuck up for the league as a whole. I said:

A) I'm under the impression the pedophile willingly took the $1,500 compensation. If this is the case, the casino is not breaking any laws.

B) The rules made it clear that he was not eligible to participate. They're going for an NFL type thing (I never commented on whether this was good or bad).

C) Casinos are greedy and you can't expect them to give out 20k to someone violating their rules. It's bad business. Is it the most moral way to do things? Of course not. It's a ****ing casino.



How the **** was anything I said here self serving or bias? I wasn't affiliated with the league in any way other than playing their tournaments. I never said they handled the situation well, and I never said that legally ok means ethically ok.



Furthermore, I'm not bias in the ongoing discussion at all. The person I have money against understands the bet is still 100% on. We have communicated over the years, and there's no ambiguity here. My situation is wrapped up nicely, and there are no complaints on either side. What I say here has no bearing on that. The only horse I have in this race is not wanting to see my friends get stolen from by you and Danny. Your chance to buy out was over 2 years ago. You didn't buy out so ****ing deal with it and pay your debts like a real gambler.
09-13-2013 , 07:56 AM
maybe now you guys can see why I get angry from time to time. Witchhunters arent exactly more rational...
09-13-2013 , 08:16 AM
Justin, this has been my position for two years, I have had this argument with Jungleman at wsop the last two years, this isn't some thing new.

Justin could you argue both. Sides of this?

Are you saying I am. Crazy for my view, or you disagree with it?
09-13-2013 , 10:27 AM
just curious why the people choosen to be arbitrators of the challenge included those with a personal financial stake in its outcome.

i am in no way impugning the integrity of any of the arbitrators, it just seems weird not to choose completely neutral parties as potential arbiters in a multi million dollar challenge.
09-13-2013 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Gamblers code,

We are sports bettors betting on a sporting event.

Thats exactly what a challenge is, an event.

Who better to judge this then the sports sites that have been making and taking bets for years.

Ariel, would you argue that we arent sports bettors betting on a sporting event?
Viffer, I think it's 100% obvious that this isn't a sports event. It's a poker bet. This is nothing like a sports bet and I'm worried you're attempting to make it one to shift the relevant judging pool from the poker community which is way more knowledgeable about poker norms and the nature of the durrrr challenge to sports handicappers who are less familiar with the situation.

How is the crossbook a sportsbet? Crossbooking is a poker activity that poker players do and there is literally no equivalent in sports.

How is the sidebet a sports bet? Because "it's an event"? So are financial crises. And investment bankers bet on what will happen in those all the time (will Greece go bankrupt-style credit default swaps). Should we ask some investment bankers what they think because they bet on events?

I see no way that this is a sports bet other than that poker is on ESPN. This is a poker bet and the views of the poker community, full of people who have way more knowledge of the bet and of the players involved, is way more relevant than what some sports better has to say

Quote:

PLease be openminded as your friends have said that you are. PLease dont dodge certain questions, I think i have reponded and answered all!!

Why didnt anyone respond to Tdomeski or river boats post? You guys would rather pick on the unedumacated one.

ONce again, jungleman has known this is my opinion for over a year, Its nothing new.
I honestly don't have time to engage in this debate any longer, I'm in the process of moving into a new apartment and have to pack up for a 6-week backpacking trip and my visas aren't in order. Been trying to keep up on my phone. I didn't respond to Tdomesky and RBK b/c I think I've made all my arguments known, it's just your arguments that come out of nowhere that I think need to be responded to (honestly? a sports bet? really?)
09-13-2013 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverboatking
just curious why the people choosen to be arbitrators of the challenge included those with a personal financial stake in its outcome.

i am in no way impugning the integrity of any of the arbitrators, it just seems weird not to choose completely neutral parties as potential arbiters in a multi million dollar challenge.
I was pretty surprised about this too, but I guess if both parties are fine w/it then whatever. Probably hard to find intelligent, trustworthy poker players who both sides know and approve of who didn't want to bet on the challenge anyway
09-13-2013 , 11:21 AM
Viffer, I take 10% of Ariel's action provided he has a stoploss of 200k. At one point, he is actually down 210k without realising it, and then comes back to win 500k. I think he owes me 50k, he thinks I owe him 20k. You think we should ask Pinnacle what they'd do?
09-13-2013 , 11:43 AM
Quote:
Viffer, I think it's 100% obvious that this isn't a sports event. It's a poker bet. This is nothing like a sports bet and I'm worried you're attempting to make it one to shift the relevant judging pool from the poker community which is way more knowledgeable about poker norms and the nature of the durrrr challenge to sports handicappers who are less familiar with the situation.
Id like to bet a whole lot that it is, should we let the ppa judge?

what do you call an event where fans watch and bet on there favorite player?
Where players challenge each other?
What does espn call it?
When pinnicle has lines to bet what do they call it?

Just one question ariel,

Just one question,

FWF if you were in law class could you argue both sides and make valid points?

Yes or no will do or you could explain.


Quote:
I was pretty surprised about this too, but I guess if both parties are fine w/it then whatever. Probably hard to find intelligent, trustworthy poker players who both sides know and approve of who didn't want to bet on the challenge anyway
They would of been fine if this would of stayed poker related, but once the DOJ and **** gets involved things get tricky and they arent qualified to arbitrate any longer.
09-13-2013 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
Viffer, I take 10% of Ariel's action provided he has a stoploss of 200k. At one point, he is actually down 210k without realising it, and then comes back to win 500k. I think he owes me 50k, he thinks I owe him 20k. You think we should ask Pinnacle what they'd do?
How do you or he know he was ever down 210k?
09-13-2013 , 11:55 AM
The points that you guys seem to continue to miss is the fact that nobody (that I am aware of) paid off the side bets once black friday went down (Just as I couldn't have collected had durrrr been winning). Because of that, I feel like now regardless of who is winning, I am in sort of a freerolled situation as I can not be sure that 3 years later the people I bet with would still be around to honor the bet had they been losing. People can always afford to win a bet but not always afford to lose a bet, especially once so much time has elapsed. Please stop with the escrow non sense. Sure we could have done that, and had we done that, we would have all taken our money back a long time ago, probably with some settlement to this whole issue, but we didn't do that so it's pointless to bring up. The fact is there can't be an infinite time pause button on a bet. What is the cut off time? 3 years, 5 years, 10 years? In any case, I am not trying to welch on a bet by any means. I believe I owe something for crossbook action on hands already played. I do not feel I have any obligation to future hands and outcome bets are seriously up for debate in my opinion. I have been in contact with the people I have bets with and will continue to discuss this with them privately.

      
m