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 , 01:58 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
Ill bet you 50k a judge wouldnt consider my my position frivilous.
09-13-2013 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLSoldier
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.

Above is not my opinion, come on look at the grammor, it is an opinion, and there are alot more out there like it.

Opinions like this are what you would see from unbiased people looking at it.
09-13-2013 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Dear matchbook,

What would happen if people bet on the out come of the durrrr challnge?
Matchbook did have an open custom market for at least the first durrrr challenge match against PA. I don't know how these wagers were settled at the change.
09-13-2013 , 02:16 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. 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.
Viffer clearly is not going to change his mind here so I'm not going to bother dismantling his arguments (as so many others have). But this argument from ALAEI is really absurd.

You're complaining about the possibility of getting freerolled, but basically are trying to give yourself an angle to freeroll every single bet you ever make by saying "oh, well too much time has passed, I'm not sure the other guy is going to be able to pay me, so I'll just call the bet a push". You must see how ridiculous that is. The other party's financial position changing is always a risk, especially if you are betting against poker players. If that risk bothers you, set a timeframe on the bet from the beginning and say "we're betting on the outcome of the challenge, assuming that it finishes within 12 months". Otherwise you just really can't come in now, when it finally appears Jungleman and Durrrr may finally work out a plan to finish this thing up, and try to play this card of "I'm concerned it's been too long and I might not get paid so I'm not going to pay my debts if I lose".

To your point about "what is the cut off time?" -- EXACTLY! Unless you specified a cut off time when you made the bet, there is none. The cutoff is 50K hands, which if they hit at some point, concludes the bet. If you and I bet on who will win their next major sooner, Tiger or Rory, do I get to call you up 5 years from now on Masters Sunday when Rory is going in with a 9 shot lead and say "hey man, it's been a long time and I'm just not sure if I'm getting freerolled here, so the bet is a push"? No f'in way. And as many have stated, the driving force behind this taking years to complete has always been Tom, not Dan. Unless you worked something else out, all side bets should be on and all crossbooking should continue on the remaining hands of the challenge.

Note: I have no money riding on this, and consider myself much more of a Durrrr fan than a Jungleman fan, but durrrr's behavior during this challenge and the arguments made by a few bettors who took his side have been completely insane and I wanted to chime in.
09-13-2013 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Ill bet you 50k a judge wouldnt consider my my position frivilous.
Dude enough with this judge b.s.

First off, it's clearly irrelevant. The law says gambling debts aren't enforceable in most circumstances. If you were playing in a private game that got robbed and the guy who ran it had vouched for the security and you asked him for the money you lost and he said "I bet you a judge would say you're **** out of luck" would you consider that relevant or proof that he's an angleshooter? Gambling honor is not the same as what the law says.

Second off no judge would take time to hear all the facts just as a favor, it would have to be a lawsuit. And that's obviously not happening.

It's honestly starting to feel like you have a "I know gambling debts aren't enforceable, I hope they don't know it, agree to bet on what a judge thinks, and then I get off scott free" fantasy

This whole judge thing is tilting b/c it's been covered, it's exactly the kind of argument only you would make (ironic you say you'er not making any arguments Danny isn't in the same post you make an argument he hasn't made).

I've got nothing more to say, don't find it productive wasting time repeating arguments you keep ignoring, and I'm gonna bow out. New promise: if I respond to a viffer post I give everybody in HSNL three million dollars (caveat: I'll then refuse and say "take it to a judge")
09-13-2013 , 02:37 PM
Lets take it to an arbitrator and not use the gambling is illeagle thing.

Just an out side person thats not involved?

Why wont you answer any questions and misdirect things.

After a 3 year delay due to an act of god should people be held to there bets,


Why are you so sure they should?


You are doging questions like a good lawyer.
09-13-2013 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
Dude enough with this judge b.s.

First off, it's clearly irrelevant. The law says gambling debts aren't enforceable in most circumstances. If you were playing in a private game that got robbed and the guy who ran it had vouched for the security and you asked him for the money you lost and he said "I bet you a judge would say you're **** out of luck" would you consider that relevant or proof that he's an angleshooter? Gambling honor is not the same as what the law says.

Second off no judge would take time to hear all the facts just as a favor, it would have to be a lawsuit. And that's obviously not happening.

It's honestly starting to feel like you have a "I know gambling debts aren't enforceable, I hope they don't know it, agree to bet on what a judge thinks, and then I get off scott free" fantasy

This whole judge thing is tilting b/c it's been covered, it's exactly the kind of argument only you would make (ironic you say you'er not making any arguments Danny isn't in the same post you make an argument he hasn't made).

I've got nothing more to say, don't find it productive wasting time repeating arguments you keep ignoring, and I'm gonna bow out. New promise: if I respond to a viffer post I give everybody in HSNL three million dollars (caveat: I'll then refuse and say "take it to a judge")
In stead of answering any of viffers questions im going to say hey im done.

WOw we have never heard that before.


I have a valid arguement and you are trying to insult my integrity for making it, thats just wrong of you.

Whats wrong with wanting to have a judge or a professional abitrator make a ruling? You know i would win?

So instead you intult my integrity and honor for bringing up valid points?



Doesnt have to be an actual judge, just a person who understands things.
And we will assume gambling debts are leagle.
09-13-2013 , 02:59 PM
OK I asked a professional sports bettor who also has extensive work in the bookmaking industry. He or she preferred that I don't mention his or her name, but I'm happy to send a screenshot of the chat to a trusted third party who can confirm his or her credentials.

I have corrected spelling errors and removed non-relevant chat, again, happy to confirm this via a screenshot or teamviewer session with a trusted third party.

There is a debate on 2p2 as to whether bets on the durrrr/jungleman challenge are still valid
Viffer and Alaei are saying that they are not

They must be challenge still not finished

Their argument is that BF was an 'act of god' which led to tom playing a lot of live poker and they didn't bet under those conditions, thus they are unfairly compromised

bull****
absolute bull****
all bets stand
what a load of crap
well jungleman the same
what a load of crap
could make any argument for any problem
still all a load of bull****
u can put the following:
when you bet as a professional gambler you have to factor in systematic risk or market risk to the price u bet at
doesnt change settlement it should change the price you take
post that also explain that unless expressly stated with a time period then nothing has changed and all bets stand
09-13-2013 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
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.
Yea cause you would really be here arguing that the bets should be off if Tom was up a ton on Jungle and a big favorite to win the whole thing.
09-13-2013 , 03:03 PM
Viffer how can anybody take what you have to say seriously when

a) it's SO clear your desperately trying to not pay or have your friends pay on the obvious loss

b) you spell Legal -- "leagle"....


like I think it's pretty apparent 900 posts later that not even close to the majority (in reality not even 20%) of the HSNL community, which in the gambling world is pretty close to the best arbitrators you would get and IMO trying to look at the situation objectively, agrees with you.

My personal opinion is that although Black Friday may have been an act of god there was a million chances they had to go abroad and settle it, they could have gone literally the next week and be set up and play again (I went super shortly after), it got put off for a ton of different reasons and the only reason it hasnt been played out is because Tom doesn't want it to be played out. The onus def. on durrr here imo, just man up and pay your loss, if he had a chance, Durrrr kinda blew it for you by not playing online for the past 3 years (a choice he willingly made to play big live games instead), good for him, bad for you, but just unlucky and doesn't warrant the bet being cancelled by any means
09-13-2013 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimordialAA
Viffer how can anybody take what you have to say seriously when

a) it's SO clear your desperately trying to not pay or have your friends pay on the obvious loss

b) you spell Legal -- "leagle"....


like I think it's pretty apparent 900 posts later that not even close to the majority (in reality not even 20%) of the HSNL community, which in the gambling world is pretty close to the best arbitrators you would get and IMO trying to look at the situation objectively, agrees with you.

My personal opinion is that although Black Friday may have been an act of god there was a million chances they had to go abroad and settle it, they could have gone literally the next week and be set up and play again (I went super shortly after), it got put off for a ton of different reasons and the only reason it hasnt been played out is because Tom doesn't want it to be played out. The onus def. on durrr here imo, just man up and pay your loss, if he had a chance, Durrrr kinda blew it for you by not playing online for the past 3 years (a choice he willingly made to play big live games instead), good for him, bad for you, but just unlucky and doesn't warrant the bet being cancelled by any means

I beg to differ, want arbitration and want to bet alot on it.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I have made valid points as to why it should be arbitrated and thats that.
09-13-2013 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
Yea cause you would really be here arguing that the bets should be off if Tom was up a ton on Jungle and a big favorite to win the whole thing.
No i would be argueing the other side, trying to collect my money. But thats why there is industial standards that have already been set and extablished. We arent the first people to ever bet on a event.


You ever watch a baseball game have the under in the game and score is 20-21 in the 6th inning, and rain stars pouring down, did you root for a rain delay?

You lost but you got a lucky break, industrial standards say you dont lose if its called. Do you still pay the people that bet the over? Are you scum or an angle shooter for pointing out the rules?
09-13-2013 , 03:19 PM
Viffer, there are many questions which you refuse to ask, since you're getting a bunch thrown at you I assume it's hard to see them all. Here are some questions, please answer them all.

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.

iii) Would you accept that part of the reason people bet on Jungleman was that he was a more dedicated online player, and that Durrrr was much more likely to take time off to go play a tournament/live game while Jungleman stayed at home and worked on his online game?

iv) Would you accept that since Durrrr took 18 months to play 80% of his Antonius hands, it was reasonable to think there was a non-insignificant chance that this challenge would take 18+ months to complete?

v) Were the Macau games an 'act of god'? Would someone who bet on Tom have had a case for cancelling the sidebet and all future action based on that 'unforeseeable event'?

vi) If not, how long would Tom have had to keep playing live games and putting in 500-1000 hands of the challenge in a month for the sidebet and future bets to get cancelled.

vii) You claim you owe 'something' for the previous crossbooked action? Is 'something' the full amount? If not, why not?

viii) Are you owed any money for the couple of thousand hands between Full Tilt coming back and the current date, during which I believe Tom is the overall winner?

ix) Do you accept that there were numerous posts on 2p2 PRE Black Friday predicting with different degrees of confidence that Black Friday would occur within the next few years, and that it was commonplace for online poker professionals to have the 'what would you do if online poker shutdown in the U.S?' conversation?

If your answer is no, please imagine that you were presented with plentiful proof of this. I, for one, can attest to have the 'what would you do' conversation with multiple online poker professionals based in the U.S.

x) If you had polled a number of online poker players on Aug 26 2010 (the day the challenge started) asking 'do you think it's 'foreseeable' that Full Tilt Poker and Pokerstars will shutdown in the United States within the next 2 years' what % do you think would have answered 'Yes, it's foreseeable'?

xi) If Full Tilt would have reopened a year earlier than it did, would the bets have stood? What is your 'inflection point' for when the future crossbook and sidebet became invalid, and why?

xii) Have you ever had a dispute with another poker player, about a poker related issue, that required arbitration? (cross-book, to reach final table bet, last longer etc.)? If so, did you use poker players for arbitration, or did you go to a lawyer/judge?

Last edited by PartyGirlUK; 09-13-2013 at 03:38 PM. Reason: added twelfth question
09-13-2013 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
I beg to differ, want arbitration and want to bet alot on it.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I have made valid points as to why it should be arbitrated and thats that.
Who's going to be an impartial arbitrator when you're involved?
09-13-2013 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
No i would be argueing the other side, trying to collect my money. But thats why there is industial standards that have already been set and extablished. We arent the first people to ever bet on a event.


You ever watch a baseball game have the under in the game and score is 20-21 in the 6th inning, and rain stars pouring down, did you root for a rain delay?

You lost but you got a lucky break, industrial standards say you dont lose if its called. Do you still pay the people that bet the over? Are you scum or an angle shooter for pointing out the rules?
These aren't the rules though and you are a scumbag and lack integrity based on your post above.

You bet on an event. The expiration on this event is measured in hands played, not time passed. So until 50k hands are played the event is not over. There are no "rain delay" rules in place unless you set them with the people you bet with before the event started. If you didn't then you are still on the hook until 50k hands are played...it's so simple anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence and integrity can understand it but I guess that explains why you don't seem to get it.
09-13-2013 , 03:27 PM
great, so unless all 50 hands are played im not on the hook since lucid said so.



how do i block idiots on here?
09-13-2013 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPB383
Who's going to be an impartial arbitrator when you're involved?
doesnt matter, wecan agree on people, jungle said someome from pinnicle was good. im sure we can get them, a professional arbitrator that noone knows, and maybe a lawyer or judge?
09-13-2013 , 03:31 PM
This is seriously some shameful ****. I'm pretty irate about this and I have no money on it. If I had money on this I'd be losing my mind.
09-13-2013 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
doesnt matter, wecan agree on people, jungle said someome from pinnicle was good. im sure we can get them, a professional arbitrator that noone knows, and maybe a lawyer or judge?
Who from Pinny do you want? What type of lawyer or judge do you want?
09-13-2013 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
great, so unless all 50 hands are played im not on the hook since lucid said so.



how do i block idiots on here?
clicky
09-13-2013 , 03:36 PM
lol
09-13-2013 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
This is seriously some shameful ****. I'm pretty irate about this and I have no money on it. If I had money on this I'd be losing my mind.


I feel the same way!! Its shamefull that im being insulted for pointing out a valid point. I have never scammed anyone, Never stolen from anyone, Dont owe anyone, And im being attacked because i dont agree with you and others?

Whats so shameful about wanting arbitration after an act of god has happened?


Quote:
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.

You guys rotate in and out and avoid the questions you dont want to answer and just insult me.




Please tell me what im doing so wrong?


Quote:
I just want to chime in and say how ****ing dumb it is for ppl to question Viffers gambling rep because he's arguing his side here. He'd be a fool not to AND he's willing to back up his stance with an escrow and knowledgeable judges.

From pool, to poker, and every bet in between, AFAIK he is a stand up guy when it comes to gambling.

Carry on....

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.
Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tdomeski
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.


PLease tell me hats so apauling for protecting my self? Or atleast trying to get it arbitrated?

Last edited by viffer; 09-13-2013 at 03:45 PM.
09-13-2013 , 03:49 PM
Now im done feeding the trolls, if anyone wants to bet on arbitration please 50-500k ill post with ariel.

PLease put your money where your mouth is, your opinion might change.
09-13-2013 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Now im done feeding the trolls, if anyone wants to bet on arbitration please 50-500k ill post with ariel.

PLease put your money where your mouth is, your opinion might change.
Lets reach out to an arbitrator or two and get their opinion.
09-13-2013 , 03:53 PM
Viffer you talk about avoiding questions but you've responded to all of the recent posts apart from mine, which included a bunch of questions, some of which you had already avoided before. Please answer all of them. I'm also curious to hear your thoughts on my conversation with sports-bettor/bookmaker.

      
m