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

09-11-2013 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by -sham-
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.
To clarify, because jungle is aggressively trying to complete the bet, (for obvious reasons) if the challenge is not completed in my eyes, its the equivalent of a forfeit for Tom.

edit: I would also add that I expect that challenge to be completed eventually, or a buyout to be agreed on because Tom has always been very trustworthy.

Last edited by eagles2.0; 09-11-2013 at 10:34 AM.
09-11-2013 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
the bias doesn't surprise me since jungleman is a frequent poster of this forum.
jungleman
Posts: 1,451
------------------
durrrr
Posts: 3,026


A surprising bias indeed.

Last edited by Deldar182; 09-11-2013 at 10:41 AM. Reason: alpha step, omega step, kappa step, sigma step
09-11-2013 , 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
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.

Expect names like ZeeJustin, Ike, Deldar, FoxwoodFiend to be completely objective on the matter. They've earned and deserve it.


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

There was not an expiration date, but your horse's decisions and circumstances are primary cause for delay.


-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?

I'm sure the people you bet with would not mind if you pay in chunks or talk about buyouts favorable to you, or to be patient and understanding. They are also fair and objective people like the ones mentioned above.

-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.

What if one team just decides to just not come out to the field in the 4th inning?

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.

Re: Not coming out to the field in the 4th inning.

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?
Forfeit obv

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.
Grey area, but the action up until now still counts and should be accounted for.

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.
Super easy buyout/settlement situation

SN: I have no financial interest in this. I would consider a decision to reneg on this to be very regrettable.

-ash

Last edited by kittenmittens; 09-11-2013 at 11:38 AM. Reason: bold/italics lolz
09-11-2013 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eewert
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.
I didn't mean the challenge itself would have expired, I meant the bettors who made side bets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deldar182
jungleman
Posts: 1,451
------------------
durrrr
Posts: 3,026


A surprising bias indeed.
durrrr may have been an active posted 3-4 years ago but I think it's clear that in the last couple of years jungleman is more of a poster in HSNL that Tom is.



I am not disagreeing that Tom is avoiding playing this match right now. I can't comment on whether or not he was dodging jungleman before black friday because from what I understand he was also playing in some big cash games in Macau and jungle was aware of the stipulation that he will be unavailable at times. No one can debate the fact that Tom has been pretty unprofessional when it comes to the effort put forth in these challenge matches and no one can really be sure why. I am sure he had his reasons, or maybe he is just lazy. As far as the side bets though in my eyes there are technicalities and I haven't seen one valid argument that suggests that without a doubt Tom should be declared a loser OR that bettors who backed Tom are obligated to ride it out when the match continues 3 years later.
09-11-2013 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pkrjker
Cant believe were back here again, yes Alaei obv jungleman would lose the bet, jesus what other out come could there possibly be??
If jungleman was physically or financially unable to compete in this challenge 3 years later when FTP reopened then bettors who backed jungleman would have a serious problem paying off any bets and anyone who backed durrrr would be crazy trying to collect.
09-11-2013 , 12:35 PM
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, 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.
Sports leagues may not "officially" endorse gambling, but they are very aware that sports betting is a major part of the appeal of watching sports. Do you think sports would be nearly as big as it is if no one were betting on games? And they do reschedule the games, sometimes for the very next day, with the very same pitchers, but all bets are still cancelled and the new bet has a new line.
09-11-2013 , 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabyz
Does anyone have experience with a personal chef delivering food to your home? I'd be looking for someone to make and deliver food I can reheat once or twice a week (depending on how fast it spoils I guess, no idea).

I've looked a bit online but all I find are caterers which is not optimal. Do you just have to go to gumtree and hope you find a good one or is there something more centralised?

Ideally, if someone could recommend someone for Camden/London that would be best ;p
I had a chef who came 3x a week MWF, made meals I could reheat or sauces etc. since proteins are pretty easy to cook on your own.

Also would come in and out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner

<3'd it. Was very easy to eat healthy tasty meals and very convenient.

Try seeing if there's a catering company or a company of chefs, try emailing restaurants if they know of services like that?
09-11-2013 , 12:54 PM
Anyone who thinks an 18 month break hurts the guy who was down 50 buyins in 25k hands of HU action is smoking some seriously good ****.

Please explain why you're only mentioning this now? Seems disingenuous. If you'd had this discussion 18 months ago you could have either agreed that the challenge would just continue when FTP was back, or that they needed to restart within x months for bets to remain valid. In the latter case I'm pretty sure that ZJ & Ike would have forced play on Pokerstars play money/U.S facing site (they are welcome to confirm), so eiither way we wouldn't face this issue.
09-11-2013 , 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
-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.
If a championship fight ends after 4 (out of 12) rounds due to an accidental foul then it goes to the judge's scorecards. All bets are valid. Both sides can come out with analogies that suit their cause.
09-11-2013 , 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
If a championship fight ends after 4 (out of 12) rounds due to an accidental foul then it goes to the judge's scorecards. All bets are valid. Both sides can come out with analogies that suit their cause.
Bad example. Fights go a maximum of 12 rounds and are often ended early due to various reasons.
09-11-2013 , 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
Bad example. Fights go a maximum of 12 rounds and are often ended early due to various reasons.
So what? These challenges go a maximum of 50k hands. You think if they actually played out a bunch of these that they go the full 50k hands anywhere near as often as a fight goes 12 rounds? Clearly not......
In fact, using your argument, boxing is a better analogy than baseball, since both boxing and 50k hand challenges might end early, but baseball matches always go at least 8.5 innings, barring a rainout.
09-11-2013 , 01:37 PM
i don't have any action on either side, but given the way this has played out i think the bets/challenge have to be on. i liked ashton's analogy of 'the losing team just refusing to show up after the 4th inning not being a good reason to cancel all bets'
09-11-2013 , 01:39 PM
Daniel-

As someone with no horse in this race, the notion that Daniel is more popular around here than Tom (to the extent that it would sway people's opinions on this matter) is really absurd imo.
09-11-2013 , 01:52 PM
heh, no wonder "3:1" seemed too good to be true
09-11-2013 , 01:59 PM
so much this being a gentleman's game. I'll never make any considerable bet with a poker player without stipulations in writing before hand. Poker players scam and scum all day errrryyyy day. Barf. If I were JM I would be going out of my mind.
09-11-2013 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cts
i don't have any action on either side, but given the way has played out i think the bets/challenge have to be on. i liked ashton's analogy of 'the losing team just refusing to show up after the 4th inning not being a good reason to cancel all bets'
It's a difficult situation for sure since terms were not clearly specified. For the reasons I stated in my original post I think one can't be expected to have to ride out the bet no matter what or no matter how long this takes. How would you handle a situation where you bet with a guy 3 years ago based on his finances 3 years ago and now he isn't around anymore or may not have the same money to pay if he loses but can definitely collect if he wins?
09-11-2013 , 02:12 PM
Daniel,

It sounds like you should have escrowed or bought out or made some sort of other arrangements as soon as it became apparent that there was going to be an extended delay?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a reputable bettor would come to you to talk buyout prior to going broke or getting out of the poker world or otherwise putting them self in a situation where they are potentially freerolling you.

If you honestly believe the person is maliciously freerolling you at this point you should probably talk to them about bringing in a 3rd party to arbitrate.


That particular situation certainly sucks and I'm not totally sure how I would handle it but I don't think that specific situation is a good "blanket" reason for canceling all bets on this challenge.

Last edited by NLSoldier; 09-11-2013 at 02:19 PM.
09-11-2013 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLSoldier
Daniel,

It sounds like you should have escrowed or bought out or made some sort of other arrangements as soon as it became apparent that there was going to be an extended delay?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a reputable bettor would come to you to talk buyout prior to going broke or getting out of the poker world or otherwise putting them self in a situation where they are potentially freerolling you.

If you honestly believe the person is maliciously freerolling you at this point you should probably talk to them about bringing in a 3rd party to arbitrate.


That particular situation certainly sucks and I'm not totally sure how I would handle it but I don't think that specific situation is a good "blanket" reason for canceling all bets on this challenge.
It's just an example of the difficultly of the situation. I don't claim to be in that position personally, but you can never be sure. A lot changes in 3 years, and to think that someone who is financially hurting would definitely reach out and admit it is a bit unrealistic in my opinion. I honestly don't know what a good resolution to this matter is. There are valid arguments for both sides and I am very sure that if the roles were opposite and jungleman backers had durrrr they would also present some issue in regards to the bets.
09-11-2013 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
to think that someone who is financially hurting would definitely reach out and admit it is a bit unrealistic in my opinion.
I really don't think it should be unrealistic insofar as I don't think you should make sizeable non-escrowed bets with anyone who wouldn't do that or who you wouldn't expect to do that. It may even be in their best interest to negotiate a buyout since the threat of just selling off the action to a (reputable) 3rd party should guarantee that they get a reasonable price.
09-11-2013 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
It's just an example of the difficultly of the situation. I don't claim to be in that position personally, but you can never be sure. A lot changes in 3 years, and to think that someone who is financially hurting would definitely reach out and admit it is a bit unrealistic in my opinion. I honestly don't know what a good resolution to this matter is. There are valid arguments for both sides and I am very sure that if the roles were opposite and jungleman backers had durrrr they would also present some issue in regards to the bets.
Did you bet the match or did you crossbook? If you crossbooked, when it came clear they wouldn't play for a while did anyone reach out to you to ask that you send them (or escrow) $ for the 30 buyins you owed them? If so, did you send?
09-11-2013 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
durrrr may have been an active posted 3-4 years ago but I think it's clear that in the last couple of years jungleman is more of a poster in HSNL that Tom is.
I perfectly anticipated this reply, and already had a response written out, but I did not think that you would have the gall to suggest that Jungleman is somehow more popular than Durrrr. Reminiscent of Viffer making up reasons to get out of his bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsdeee
so much this being a gentleman's game. I'll never make any considerable bet with a poker player without stipulations in writing before hand. Poker players scam and scum all day errrryyyy day. Barf. If I were JM I would be going out of my mind.
Yes. Seriously, I would be sick to my stomach. This is a warning to really not trust ANYONE. Money gonna money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
There are valid arguments for both sides and I am very sure that if the roles were opposite and jungleman backers had durrrr they would also present some issue in regards to the bets.
Actually, there aren't. The reason I'm so vociferously defending Jungleman is not because I have a vested interest, but because sometimes I see an injustice so great that for better or worse I cannot keep my mouth shut. I have zero affiliation with Jungleman.

Jungleman is literally getting ****ed to the tune of 3 million dollars because Durrrr simply decided that he doesn't feel like paying anymore. Just because you backed someone that is not playing fair, it does not by proxy excuse you from honorable conduct.

Last edited by Deldar182; 09-11-2013 at 03:54 PM.
09-11-2013 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
It's just an example of the difficultly of the situation. I don't claim to be in that position personally, but you can never be sure. A lot changes in 3 years, and to think that someone who is financially hurting would definitely reach out and admit it is a bit unrealistic in my opinion. I honestly don't know what a good resolution to this matter is. There are valid arguments for both sides and I am very sure that if the roles were opposite and jungleman backers had durrrr they would also present some issue in regards to the bets.
Alaei and Viffer keep throwing out this "3 years". Let's be clear, it's been 3 years since DWAN decided to put forth a serious effort in this challenge. FTP, on the other hand, was down for 1 year 3 months. A majority of the time that this thing has been played has been a result of Dwan choosing not to play, INCLUDING BEFORE BLACK FRIDAY. The idea that because he does this all bets are off is ****ing insane to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deldar182
Jungleman is literally getting ****ed to the tune of 3 million dollars because Durrrr simply decided that he doesn't feel like paying anymore. Just because you backed someone that is not playing fair, it does not by proxy excuse you from honorable conduct.
+1 this exactly. I mean, what a freeroll. The guy loses a bunch to start off with and decides to stop playing and everyone who bet on him thinks they're free and clear now. Wow, great deal.

I'm sure if after the first few months Jungle was down 30 buyins and he decided to go live in the mountains for 3 years to cope with his loss while Dwan concurrently played HU NLHE non stop you'd guys be making the same argument too right? All bets are off, Jungle likes nature hikes and Dwan has to deal with this and oh yeah Full Tilt went down so this changes everything.
09-11-2013 , 04:25 PM
[QUOTE=Deldar182;40113265]I perfectly anticipated this reply, and already had a response written out, but I did not think that you would have the gall to suggest that Jungleman is somehow more popular than Durrrr. Reminiscent of Viffer making up reasons to get out of his bet.


This is the second time this has been brought up so ill address it. What I meant was that more people of this forum bet on jungleman/have friends who bet on jungleman than durrr. Not suggesting durrrr is less popular than jungleman. Perhaps I worded it wrong.
09-11-2013 , 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
It's a difficult situation for sure since terms were not clearly specified. For the reasons I stated in my original post I think one can't be expected to have to ride out the bet no matter what or no matter how long this takes. How would you handle a situation where you bet with a guy 3 years ago based on his finances 3 years ago and now he isn't around anymore or may not have the same money to pay if he loses but can definitely collect if he wins?
Then he's a ****ing idiot, and you're just as stupid for betting with him in the first place without an escrow.
09-11-2013 , 04:29 PM
You understand that by definition for each person who bet on jungleman there is another person who bet on durrrr right? That's sort of how it works.

      
m