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

09-13-2013 , 11:56 AM
i think ZJ and viffer should settle this dispute in a good old fashioned prop bet. the stakes: the remaining hair follicles on their head (kept in escrow by Daniel Negreneau - although he might not want to give them back)

they each get to pitch their case (good old fashioned flip to see who goes first), and the top 300 GPI players vote on it. this is the only fair way, as GPI ranking -> poker skill -> intelligence.

some suggested judges could include completely unbiased parties like riverboatdramaqueen, tom "durrrr" dwan, and dan "jungleman12" cates
09-13-2013 , 11:57 AM
One last comment here regarding comparing this to a sporting event. Poker may not be a sport but poker is a game where there are definitely betting markets. Matchbook offers many poker related sports bets so they could very much have a solid opinion in the arbitration of this issue.
09-13-2013 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
How do you or he know he was ever down 210k?
That's irrelevant. If it makes you happy he found out when he graphed the session. Please answer my question.

Your 'law school' question is irrelevant. 'Hey Ariel, please argue x' 'No Mr. Dershowitz, that's clearly absurd! Go **** yourself!'. A bunch of lawyers argued that O.J was innocent. I once went to a debate where someone argued against the motion 'the world is round'.
09-13-2013 , 12:10 PM
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.
ivey was originally supposed to be an arbitrator, but he apparently doesnt care about the challenge
09-13-2013 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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.
Incorrect. Viffer said he'd settled all of his bets apart from that with Jungleman, and a few posts ago another guy chimed in saying he'd paid up on his side of the bet.

Apart from you I've never heard of a single person who thought the challenge was over after BF. Not even Viffer. Just you.
09-13-2013 , 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
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.
Another complete lie.
09-13-2013 , 12:16 PM
BTW, re. the escrow issue. You claim it's pointless since it didn't happen. I disagree with that, unless you have a good reason to think they wouldn't have paid if they won then you have to pay. Obviously you don't have to pay "E-Dog" for his bet on Jungleman.

Regardless, did anyone you bet with contact you after Black Friday with an attempt to collect their winnings thus far and/or escrow the money? If they didn't, and you didn't, how can you then turn around and refuse to pay because you didn't have an escrow and they theoretically might have gone busto in the intervening 3 years?

(n.b they had played about 18k hands in 8 months, including almost 0 in 4 months, at that point it was clear the challenge was going to take a while, why didn't you ask for an escrow at that point?)
09-13-2013 , 12:19 PM
Viffer, you claimed you'd settled with everyone apart from Jungleman, who you had made repeated efforts to do so with.

i) How many people did you settle with, who were they, and at what terms?

ii) Jungleman posted a text exchange which made it look like he had tried to settle with you, you had refused to, and confirmed the bet was still on. Were you lying? If not, please post the correspondence that would support your case.
09-13-2013 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
That's irrelevant. If it makes you happy he found out when he graphed the session. Please answer my question.

Your 'law school' question is irrelevant. 'Hey Ariel, please argue x' 'No Mr. Dershowitz, that's clearly absurd! Go **** yourself!'. A bunch of lawyers argued that O.J was innocent. I once went to a debate where someone argued against the motion 'the world is round'.
Ariel cant answer this question, If he answers yes, oviously he could, then im not the idiot hes trying to make me out to be.


And he cant say no cause he knows it isnt true. He doesnt want to lie.
09-13-2013 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman
Another complete lie.

I didnt tell you last year i wasnt paying thanks to the doj? This is when you tried to barrow money at aria. I guess that didnt happen either?


Now SHHHHHHHHHH you stick to your video games.
09-13-2013 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Ariel cant answer this question, If he answers yes, oviously he could, then im not the idiot hes trying to make me out to be.


And he cant say no cause he knows it isnt true. He doesnt want to lie.
I already said that he could argue it. Ariel was arguably the best high school debater in the country. I'm sure he could post a list of totally ridiculous things that he actually argued for. He could argue that the moon was made out of cheese, and probably win! That doesn't mean the moon is made out of cheese, OR that it's reasonable to think that the moon is made out of cheese.

I've asked you the following question twice, let's try again.

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. He graphs the session and realised his oversight. I think he owes me 50k, he thinks I owe him 20k. So you think we should ask Pinnacle what they'd do?
09-13-2013 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
I already posted that he could argue it. Ariel was arguably the best high school debated in the country. He could argue that the moon was made out of cheese, and probably win! That doesn't mean the moon is made out of cheese.

I've asked you the following question twice, let's try again.

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. He graphs the session and realised his oversight. I think he owes me 50k, he thinks I owe him 20k. So you think we should ask Pinnacle what they'd do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting

Pinnicle could answer this question, actually anyone could. Given all the facts that you stated you owe him 20k. Any thing else you would be free rolling him.

This isnt a cut and dry circumstance.
09-13-2013 , 12:45 PM
You think it's a cut and dry case, but I don't*. So we agree to go someone to make a ruling. Do you think we should ask Pinnacle or should we ask some poker players?

*Btw I do think it's cut and dry, but that's not relevant here. You think that's cut and dry, what if I think this case is cut and dry?

What if I had said something more vague like 'Sure I'll take the 10% but I don't want you to lose more than 200k so if you do please find try and find someone else to take the action or take it yourself. Booked', and then he never replies, but plays anyway? Here my wording is more ambiguous, 'try and'. Twist the bet however you want so that you are happy it's not 'cut and dry' so you speak. The point really isn't who actually owes who what in that scenario, just what to do if there was a dispute.

Do you think we should go to Pinnacle as arbitrators?
09-13-2013 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
I didnt tell you last year i wasnt paying thanks to the doj? This is when you tried to barrow money at aria. I guess that didnt happen either?


Now SHHHHHHHHHH you stick to your video games.
nope, you said you werent going to pay because tom isnt going to finish the challenge. Did you get that I asked to borrow money from what I said about the Aria?
09-13-2013 , 12:55 PM
what is it called when two people bet on the favorite player in a match,

A sports bet.


Yes pinnicle should arbitrate that.
09-13-2013 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
You think it's a cut and dry case, but I don't*. So we agree to go someone to make a ruling. Do you think we should ask Pinnacle or should we ask some poker players?

*Btw I do think it's cut and dry, but that's not relevant here. You think that's cut and dry, what if I think this case is cut and dry?

What if I had said something more vague like 'Sure I'll take the 10% but I don't want you to lose more than 200k so if you do please find try and find someone else to take the action or take it yourself. Booked', and then he never replies, but plays anyway? Here my wording is more ambiguous, 'try and'. Twist the bet however you want so that you are happy it's not 'cut and dry' so you speak. The point really isn't who actually owes who what in that scenario, just what to do if there was a dispute.

Do you think we should go to Pinnacle as arbitrators?

But any judge or lawyer or anyone tht could look at all the facts that isnt emotionally involved would also work.
09-13-2013 , 01:02 PM
bet on what pinnacle says? Escrow and ill take you on that.
09-13-2013 , 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Ariel cant answer this question, If he answers yes, oviously he could, then im not the idiot hes trying to make me out to be.


And he cant say no cause he knows it isnt true. He doesnt want to lie.
Viff there are things that could be said in favor of canceling any bet. They just aren't convincing at all. Lawyers write briefs dozens of pages long saying things they know won't convince anybody and realizing their side is wrong.

The question isn't "is there a thing that can be said that helps my side" it's whether the arguments are frivolous or not.

And viff I think you need to pause and think what it sounds like when you say "if any arguments could be made then of course I'll make them and fight this thing"

Arguing against a debt just because you've got money to lose is extremely shady. Plenty of people pay up debts when it's a grey area and they think they possibly owe. It's gambler's honor. Think of how messy the world would be if every time a guy who owed money said "if there's a shred of an argument on my side I'm going to dig my heels in and demand arbitration because that's what anybody with money to lose would do"

I think you come across way worse in this than you think by saying "OF COURSE I'm arguing for my side!!!" the whole gambling world revolves around people putting their word and what they think is right above their financial interests

I mean Alaei actually is trying to figure out the issues with an open mind. He's not saying things like "anybody in my shoes would fight this", he thinks It's complicated. You seem to be arguing to avoid a debt and throwing anything against the wall that might stick
09-13-2013 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
Viff there are things that could be said in favor of canceling any bet. They just aren't convincing at all. Lawyers write briefs dozens of pages long saying things they know won't convince anybody and realizing their side is wrong.

The question isn't "is there a thing that can be said that helps my side" it's whether the arguments are frivolous or not.

And viff I think you need to pause and think what it sounds like when you say "if any arguments could be made then of course I'll make them and fight this thing"

Arguing against a debt just because you've got money to lose is extremely shady. Plenty of people pay up debts when it's a grey area and they think they possibly owe. It's gambler's honor. Think of how messy the world would be if every time a guy who owed money said "if there's a shred of an argument on my side I'm going to dig my heels in and demand arbitration because that's what anybody with money to lose would do"




I think you come across way worse in this than you think by saying "OF COURSE I'm arguing for my side!!!" the whole gambling world revolves around people putting their word and what they think is right above their financial interests

I mean Alaei actually is trying to figure out the issues with an open mind. He's not saying things like "anybody in my shoes would fight this", he thinks It's complicated. You seem to be arguing to avoid a debt and throwing anything against the wall that might stick

I have tried to talk to jungle man and settle this, He told me he wanted 95% of the side bet, r he was going to post on two plus two about me.

Alie and I are making same arguements, If i was just not going to pay then i would of never brought this up and hope tom won. Danny just chooses his words better then i do. Hes also better looking.

Sure im open minded, Its just hard when you know you have valid points and you have biased mob atacking you.


Is it valid to think i shouldnt have to continue to bet on tom after all that has happened?

Is it valid to compare this to a sporting event? I think it is, Its the closest thing we have, and it actually is.

Quote:
The question isn't "is there a thing that can be said that helps my side" it's whether the arguments are frivolous or not.*
If im so frivilous do you think a judge would let my case goto trial?

Lets ask matchboook, who sponsors tons of poker players what they think? IM guessing people already have, and we would of heard it if i was wrong.



Dear matchbook,

What would happen if people bet on the out come of the durrrr challnge?

Last edited by viffer; 09-13-2013 at 01:27 PM.
09-13-2013 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman
bet on what pinnacle says? Escrow and ill take you on that.
you wont bet that waters wet, go play video games.
09-13-2013 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
you wont bet that waters wet, go play video games.
So just to be clear you're not standing by the bet you offered because the guy who snap accepted who plays nosebleeds and took the durrrr challenge is too pussy a bettor?

Lol
09-13-2013 , 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
Viff there are things that could be said in favor of canceling any bet. They just aren't convincing at all. Lawyers write briefs dozens of pages long saying things they know won't convince anybody and realizing their side is wrong.

The question isn't "is there a thing that can be said that helps my side" it's whether the arguments are frivolous or not.

And viff I think you need to pause and think what it sounds like when you say "if any arguments could be made then of course I'll make them and fight this thing"

Arguing against a debt just because you've got money to lose is extremely shady. Plenty of people pay up debts when it's a grey area and they think they possibly owe. It's gambler's honor. Think of how messy the world would be if every time a guy who owed money said "if there's a shred of an argument on my side I'm going to dig my heels in and demand arbitration because that's what anybody with money to lose would do"

I think you come across way worse in this than you think by saying "OF COURSE I'm arguing for my side!!!" the whole gambling world revolves around people putting their word and what they think is right above their financial interests

I mean Alaei actually is trying to figure out the issues with an open mind. He's not saying things like "anybody in my shoes would fight this", he thinks It's complicated. You seem to be arguing to avoid a debt and throwing anything against the wall that might stick
It is pretty clear that the DOJ shutdown was an act of god that inexorably altered the nature of the match. BF was a basically an unforeseeable event devastating to the online poker landscape of Full Tilt and American players. The match as it was originally intended -- or could have been reasonably analyzed by a side bettor -- will NEVER be again.

As such, the side bets, including the the x-books, should be null and void. I include the x-books since they were made implicitly contingent upon the match being completed. Since the shutdown altered so severely the match, it will be impossible to complete it under the conditions during which the bets were initially made. It is unreasonable to expect a bettor to have had included the possibility of a BF-esque event in their analysis.

Both the behavior of Tom before or after BF and the fact that JM is winning handily is entirely irrelevant. Therefore, the side bettors cannot be expected to have even implicit agreements among each other to prorate the bets if players were uncooperative or the match ended abruptly, as it has.

Last edited by viffer; 09-13-2013 at 01:55 PM.
09-13-2013 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
And viff I think you need to pause and think what it sounds like when you say "if any arguments could be made then of course I'll make them and fight this thing"

Arguing against a debt just because you've got money to lose is extremely shady. Plenty of people pay up debts when it's a grey area and they think they possibly owe. It's gambler's honor. Think of how messy the world would be if every time a guy who owed money said "if there's a shred of an argument on my side I'm going to dig my heels in and demand arbitration because that's what anybody with money to lose would do"

I think you come across way worse in this than you think by saying "OF COURSE I'm arguing for my side!!!" the whole gambling world revolves around people putting their word and what they think is right above their financial interests
Came to post exactly this^^^

Viffer,

There are people in this thread (such as FWF) who I would have no problem making a bet with in which I allowed them to be the escrow, the judge, and the sole arbiter of any potential disputes. I'd be willing to do that because I'm confident that they would put the interests of fairness and the spirit if the bet ahead of their own interest in winning. (Just as I know I would if the situation were reversed.)

Are there any people in the gambling/poker world that you would put that kind of trust in?


If Jungle told you:

"OK Viffer, I trust you and want you to make the final decision on this bet (challenge) and i'll live with whatever you decide."

What exactly would your ruling be?

Edit-looks like you maybe just answered this last question in your above post.
09-13-2013 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
So just to be clear you're not standing by the bet you offered because the guy who snap accepted who plays nosebleeds and took the durrrr challenge is too pussy a bettor?

Lol
he has told me many times he would take my bets, we have aa bet about if tom could play from home the chalenge would be over in 30 days, how much did he escrow?

Of course ill bet him,



escrow 50k lets go.
09-13-2013 , 01:54 PM
Why do you keep asking Jungle to play video games? He's being reasonable and mature about this and you're acting like a child.

      
m