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

09-09-2013 , 08:23 PM
lol that's a sick law
09-09-2013 , 09:31 PM
in these tough times i just try to get in on my parents health care
09-09-2013 , 09:34 PM
Doesn't work if you're > 26
09-09-2013 , 09:44 PM
ike,

Yes. I'm currently in Malta and recently set up Allianz. Explained I would be traveling constantly. You have to let them know when you move, as it can change your premiums for the next year. E-mail/call them and explain your situation. You should qualify.

It's possible that you may be planning to spend more time in the US than I am. If that's the case, it might not be for you. See their coverage terms.
09-09-2013 , 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend

1) Typically in the law (and I think just more generally as a matter of fairness) parties only get out of contracts based on unexpected events if some unforeseeable hazard occurs either makes the contract impossible to fulfill or completely undermines the purpose of the contract (think renting an apartment for a vacation to a place struck by a hurricane).
I don't have a dog in this fight and probably shouldn't even be posting here. I don't think that Viffer has that all that strong of a position BUT the idea that extreme weather is an "unforeseeable hazard" is really kind of ridiculous. Doesn't really change the argument but the analogy sucks.

Last edited by Brow2821; 09-09-2013 at 11:13 PM.
09-09-2013 , 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brow2821
I don't have a dog in this fight and probably shouldn't even be posting here. I think that Viffer has that all that strong of a position BUT the idea that extreme weather is an "unforeseeable hazard" is really kind of ridiculous. Doesn't really change the argument but the analogy sucks.
thanks for chiming in for the nitpick. change unforeseeable to unforeseen and carry on

or really something the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract and the risk of occurrence was not assumed by either party. god the law is boring sometimes

Last edited by FoxwoodsFiend; 09-09-2013 at 11:16 PM.
09-09-2013 , 11:26 PM
With a little more thought, I think the analogy sucks for both sides. Typically, an excuse based on an act of god requires that there be no human cause of the disaster, that the problem was unavoidable, and not reasonably avoidable. If the extreme weather analogy does apply, I think in this instance it would be more like contracting to build your house on a flood plain or on a beach susceptible to high tide etc. etc.

I actually don't think that analyzing this from a legal perspective gets anybody anywhere because unfortunately I don't think that the courts would be sympathetic to those claiming that they are owed on this bet. As I'm assuming everyone is aware, courts are unlikely to enforce contracts that have an illegal purpose or are against public policy. Now, I know the technicality that playing poker in the U.S. wasn't technically illegal, at the end of the day the courts will still likely look at this contract as being against public policy and refuse to get involved.

Of course, everybody already knows that, right? That's why we are arguing about this in the forums and via twitter and not in the courts. The fact of the matter is that all that is really at stake is Tom's reputation and maybe some sort of extra-legal remedies people might have in mind (I'm not speculating that there are but even there none of such remedies are likely to make anybody whole). So at the end of the day, all this legal argument is moot and irrelevant because it really just comes down to whether or not Tom (a) thinks he owes finishing the challenging or (b) cares about what people think about him / wants to do the right things or (c) both (a) and (b).

I think it's pretty clear to most that the "right" thing to do is to finish the challenge sooner than later but clearly that point has already been hashed and re-hashed ad infinitum / ad nauseum on the forums and elsewhere.

I actually think this whole situation is actually such a strong argument FOR legalizing and regulating online poker, so in situations like this people will have legal remedies instead of being at the mercy of other people's sense of what's right and willingness to do right.
09-09-2013 , 11:31 PM
Some thing happened that neither party could prevent, taking away ones right to play. It should never be expected for one or both players to have to leave there home country to play this.

Looking at this from a gambling prospective, if any major betting exchange took action on this match it would be called a draw.
09-09-2013 , 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1016
ike,

Yes. I'm currently in Malta and recently set up Allianz. Explained I would be traveling constantly. You have to let them know when you move, as it can change your premiums for the next year. E-mail/call them and explain your situation. You should qualify.

It's possible that you may be planning to spend more time in the US than I am. If that's the case, it might not be for you. See their coverage terms.
Are you legally a resident of Malta or just there for 180 days a year as a "tourist?"
09-09-2013 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxwoodsFiend
thanks for chiming in for the nitpick. change unforeseeable to unforeseen and carry on

or really something the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract and the risk of occurrence was not assumed by either party. god the law is boring sometimes
Oh and sorry I wasn't trying to nit pick just saying I don't think the extreme weather thing helps so much here.

But if you did want to use the analogy I guess that the question would be, assuming that the DOJ was really the intervening cause of the challenge getting f'ed up (I think most of us think it wasn't) is whether the DOJ intervening was more like Viffer losing the house that he built on a floodplain or Viffer losing his house because it was destroyed in an alien invasion. Viffer is trying to argue, I think implausibly, that it was the latter. I think most people agree that the action on this bet was more like building your house in a place susceptible to any number of interferences. I mean when black friday happened people were shocked that it was happening, but nobody really thought it was impossible or even all that unlikely that it could happen, right?

Like I said, no dog in this fight, just reading a lot of arguing past each other.
09-10-2013 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brow2821
Oh and sorry I wasn't trying to nit pick just saying I don't think the extreme weather thing helps so much here.

But if you did want to use the analogy I guess that the question would be, assuming that the DOJ was really the intervening cause of the challenge getting f'ed up (I think most of us think it wasn't) is whether the DOJ intervening was more like Viffer losing the house that he built on a floodplain or Viffer losing his house because it was destroyed in an alien invasion. Viffer is trying to argue, I think implausibly, that it was the latter. I think most people agree that the action on this bet was more like building your house in a place susceptible to any number of interferences. I mean when black friday happened people were shocked that it was happening, but nobody really thought it was impossible or even all that unlikely that it could happen, right?

Like I said, no dog in this fight, just reading a lot of arguing past each other.
The playing field got changed, fans shouldnt be penalized for some thing out of there control.
09-10-2013 , 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
The playing field got changed, fans shouldnt be penalized for some thing out of there control.
The ppl in NVG are fans. You bet so you have a vested interest in the results and are not just a fan watching from the rail. At the time you bet on it bc you liked your side of the bet...you no longer like your side and now you're trying to get out of your bet...that's so scummy.

Jungle was in the same position as durrrr before BF. Also this is called the durrrr challenge remember? He issued a challenge to any player in the world and and basically begged Jungle to take the challenge...Jungle takes it and now has to beg durrrr to finish it which is ridiculous.
09-10-2013 , 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
The playing field got changed, fans shouldnt be penalized for some thing out of there control.
Bottom line is the game has never been cancelled. It is just a delay. Too bad you prob have the wrong side in this match but u still have a punchers chance
09-10-2013 , 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
The ppl in NVG are fans. You bet so you have a vested interest in the results and are not just a fan watching from the rail. At the time you bet on it bc you liked your side of the bet...you no longer like your side and now you're trying to get out of your bet...that's so scummy.

Jungle was in the same position as durrrr before BF. Also this is called the durrrr challenge remember? He issued a challenge to any player in the world and and basically begged Jungle to take the challenge...Jungle takes it and now has to beg durrrr to finish it which is ridiculous.
This (I dont have action on the challenge).

Don't think its an argument that they had to fly out of the country to finish the challenge. Thats a minor hassle for such a huge thing. And both did actually (and was also able to do it as much as they wanted) leave US to play poker after black friday.
09-10-2013 , 04:12 AM
Would it have been illegal to play on the play money tables and square up afterwards in the states?
09-10-2013 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ike
Are you legally a resident of Malta or just there for 180 days a year as a "tourist?"
"tourist"
09-11-2013 , 12:13 AM
use etsy or similar for art unless you have too much money or know how to buy art.

example:


http://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/15946...r_feed_tlp=art

just browse till you find **** you like. if you get abstract stuff in my experience you should buy it as big as possible otherwise its kind of lame.
09-11-2013 , 12:18 AM
^ amazing. ty
09-11-2013 , 08:03 AM
Seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this forum feel that nothing has changed and the challenge should resume as normal and all bets should still be on. I have a bet on durrrr in this challenge, otherwise I probably wouldn't care to respond to this matter. I am sure many people who are knowledgeable, reputable and unbiased in the gambling world would disagree with the opinions shared here but won't ever read this thread nor care to post since they have no vested interest. It's pretty incredible to me that everyone here seems to think viffer is crazy with his claims but I am assuming that the posters here are sort of like a fraternity and everyone is friends with everyone and most people have the jungleman side of the bet/are friends with people who are on team jungleman so the bias doesn't surprise me since jungleman is a frequent poster of this forum. There are many factors that bring up questionability for the side bets of this challenge.

-If there was an expiration date on the bets in this challenge it would have expired a long time ago.

-Most/all bets weren't escrowed. People's finances change in this business every day/week/month. 3 years have passed since this challenge started. If one participant in the bet has gone broke/is out of poker should he be freerolling the other person that is still in the poker world?

-If this was bet was made on any gambling site without any doubt in the world all bets would be null and void. If you bet over 8 runs in a baseball game and the score is 5-4 in the 4th inning and the game gets rained out the bet is cancelled. Sure it sucks for over backers but that's the way the world works.

These are just some of the facts based on technicalities. These don't even go into the fact that 3 years is a long time and players change and circumstances change. You can't assume that just because full tilt came back up after any amount of time that bets on the challenge should still be honored. Both participants in the challenge are completely different players than they were when the bets were made. It's completely unreasonable to expect bettors to honor bets that were made during a completely different set of circumstances just because Tom has decided to continue the match when in my opinion he is under no obligation to do so. What if jungleman had no money by now to finish this match or had become addicted to drugs and had no friends willing to back him? Would jungleman be forced to forfeit and all bets on him would be considered losers? When full tilt went down and online poker was considered illegal in the US this challenge and all bets made on this challenge were cancelled. If the same two players decided to play again years later on full tilt or any other site then it should be a new challenge with new betting lines just like in any other sport, in my opinion.

I saw the argument that perhaps the challenge should be considered ended when full tilt went down and results should be based on the hands that were completed up until that point. While that can be viewed as a valid argument it still has some holes. This was a 50,000 hand challenge. Not a 15,000 (or however many hands they played) challenge. What if you felt that one player possessed more of an edge in the second half of the challenge than he did in the first half? Should you get penalized because full tilt got shut down still very early in the challenge? Of course not. Also refer back to the sports betting example. Unless a match is completed, or a specified % of the match is completed, all bets don't count. Of course these rules are stated in the fine print and most bets here didn't come with any fine print but it will be very hard in my opinion to prove that the bets should still be honored. Does this suck for jungleman backers? Of course it does but this kind of stuff happens in sports all the time.

Last edited by ALAEI; 09-11-2013 at 08:31 AM.
09-11-2013 , 08:48 AM
meh....durrrr was ducking jungle for months before Black Friday. The reality is this challenge should have been finished within a few months and all bets settled before Black Friday ever happened.

There is chat somewhere on this site in some NVG monthly thread of durrrr basically begging jungle in FTP chat to take the "durrrr challenge" and told him they could finish it in a couple months....lolol

Due to those facts alone when FTP comes back up if jungle still wants to finish it then yes....Tom is obligated to finish it. I think he should be able to just forfeit and pay out the side bet if he wants but anything short of doing that he's obligated to finish it if jungle wants to.
09-11-2013 , 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ike
Do any Americans who live outside the US and travel a lot/don't really have a permanent address have health insurance? I can't seem to find a plan I'm eligible for and apparently under the new health care laws we're all required to have it and will be subject to an annual penalty of 1% of our income, payable to the IRS, if we don't.
I am pretty sure you could get insurance from any of the private insurance companies in Germany as well. As long as you pay the bills it should be fine. If you need some numbers i can help you out.
09-11-2013 , 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
-If there was an expiration date on the bets in this challenge it would have expired a long time ago.
Well, duh, wonder why that is? So anytime it starts looking bad for you, just start dodging your opponent and wait for the challenge to expire? That's the most relevant thing here in my opinion, black friday isn't the reason the challenge isn't done, it's durrr's unwillingness to play.
09-11-2013 , 09:43 AM
[QUOTE=ALAEI;40108465 What if jungleman had no money by now to finish this match or had become addicted to drugs and had no friends willing to back him?[/QUOTE]

Cant believe were back here again, yes Alaei obv jungleman would lose the bet, jesus what other out come could there possibly be??
09-11-2013 , 09:47 AM
Alaei,

If the challenge were to not be completed, its pretty clear that anyone who bet on Tom needs to pay up, he's down a ton of buyins, and clearly is more responsible for hands not being played than jungle. HUNL online you can get in between 150-200 hands per hour, per table. This requires 50-70 hours of play if they were 4 tabling. I have a lot of respect for Tom (as a person and player) but he's in the wrong here. Jungle seems to be willing to play Tom almost any day of the week and based on the results thus far has a substantial edge in the challenge. The analogy of sports betting is not comparable because sports leagues officially do not endorse gambling on games, therefore they would never reschedule a game.

Last edited by eagles2.0; 09-11-2013 at 10:17 AM.
09-11-2013 , 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagles2.0
Alaei,

If the challenge were to not be completed, its pretty clear that anyone who bet on Tom needs to pay up
Unless terms of the bet were in place regarding any other outcome besides completion of the challenge - 50,000 hands, or buyout - you are clearly wrong.

a bet is a bet is a bet.

you cannot just change the rules of a bet, mid-bet, as you are unhappy with the bet.

      
m