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 , 04:31 PM
All bets are clearly still on.

Aside: If anything, Jungleman has a bad reputation, and durrrr an excellent one (until now).
09-11-2013 , 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cts
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'

You have a point, but the people betting on the side cant be freerolled, nor should they be penalized for unforseable circumstances. These rules have been around for ever and have been refined by gamblers, casinos and major sports books for years.


I have offered to bet 50k on what a few judges would say, nooone has taken me up on it?
09-11-2013 , 04:39 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.

When full tilt and stars went down, noone had any money to settle with or buy out?

How would jungleman play if he couldnt get staked or didnt get his tilt money back?
09-11-2013 , 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deldar182
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.
I believe the issue of durrr vs jungleman is different than the case of side bettors vs side bettors. We side bettors were just betting on a match, like we often do with sports. It is not in our control how the participants handle their schedule or the events of black friday. Durrrr vs jungleman has some direct accountability issues for Tom and that needs to be handled as such.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe there to be any perfect solution for side bettors on this issue since there is so much grey area. Fairest way is probably to take this to a panel of completely unbiased arbitrators who have years of experience in the gambling, not just poker, world and come to a resolution that way.
09-11-2013 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deldar182
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.



Yes. Seriously, I would be sick to my stomach. This is a warning to really not trust ANYONE. Money gonna money.


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.
I will bet you 50k we will ask 3 judges or professors or pelople who run sports books.

Also Jungleman isnt getting screwed, we arent saying tom shouldnt or wont play, we are stating that people that have zero control after so long shouldnt be penalised for some thing out of control, Its how sports gambling works.
09-11-2013 , 04:45 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.
Honestly, it's very simple. There are not good arguments on both sides, there is as far as I see it exactly 1 relevant argument in all of this.

People who bet on this made a bet that very clearly mirrors the bet that JM and durrrr made. If you made a bet on the results of the match, you made a bet that mirrors their side bet. If you made a xbook, that reflects the actual played hands. By entering into these bets, you are subject to the same results of the bet between JM and Tom themselves. Unless you specified with whoever you bet with that the terms of your bet or crossbook are somehow not governed by the same terms of the actual match you are betting on, then you are by default held to the same rules as JM and Tom for their bet.

Unless Tom somehow gets the 30+buy ins he is down back, then whatever your crossbook was you are responsible for at this point, and going forward. If you bet on the sidebet, I'd say you are fine waiting until they settle it.

Every attempted argument to draw comparisons to a rain out are completely absurd. The reason why your bet is void in a rain out, is because THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE GAME ARE VOIDED. In the current bet, jungleman is not giving back the 1.3m or whatever he is already up, so that counts as part of the results. And if he somehow gets paid the 1.5m sidebet, or settles for another amount- you better believe you are on the hook for that amount if you bet against him.

Oh and full disclosure: I have no money on the match, I have known both parties for a long time but I am not friends with either really, and I have very good friends with money on both sides.
09-11-2013 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
I believe the issue of durrr vs jungleman is different than the case of side bettors vs side bettors. We side bettors were just betting on a match, like we often do with sports. It is not in our control how the participants handle their schedule or the events of black friday. Durrrr vs jungleman has some direct accountability issues for Tom and that needs to be handled as such.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe there to be any perfect solution for side bettors on this issue since there is so much grey area. Fairest way is probably to take this to a panel of completely unbiased arbitrators who have years of experience in the gambling, not just poker, world and come to a resolution that way.
I wish i knew how to wright,


what he just said!!!!!!!!!!

Now everone can SMD someone edumacated writing!!!!!
09-11-2013 , 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
I will bet you 50k we will ask 3 judges or professors or pelople who run sports books.

Also Jungleman isnt getting screwed, we arent saying tom shouldnt or wont play, we are stating that people that have zero control after so long shouldnt be penalised for some thing out of control, Its how sports gambling works.
he has full control. The events of black friday affected them equally (actually they were arguably worse for JM considering his FTP balance). This point has been destroyed over and over again. It's meaningless.
09-11-2013 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
I have offered to bet 50k on what a few judges would say, nooone has taken me up on it?
Who in their right mind would bet with you on anything after reading this thread?
09-11-2013 , 04:51 PM
Let's notice btw there are exactly 2 people arguing on toms side here (not even tom himself would take their position imo), and both have heavy bets on Tom.

There are tons of people with no money on this, who are taking the JM side.
09-11-2013 , 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
Honestly, it's very simple. There are not good arguments on both sides, there is as far as I see it exactly 1 relevant argument in all of this.

People who bet on this made a bet that very clearly mirrors the bet that JM and durrrr made. If you made a bet on the results of the match, you made a bet that mirrors their side bet. If you made a xbook, that reflects the actual played hands. By entering into these bets, you are subject to the same results of the bet between JM and Tom themselves. Unless you specified with whoever you bet with that the terms of your bet or crossbook are somehow not governed by the same terms of the actual match you are betting on, then you are by default held to the same rules as JM and Tom for their bet.

Unless Tom somehow gets the 30+buy ins he is down back, then whatever your crossbook was you are responsible for at this point, and going forward. If you bet on the sidebet, I'd say you are fine waiting until they settle it.

Every attempted argument to draw comparisons to a rain out are completely absurd. The reason why your bet is void in a rain out, is because THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE GAME ARE VOIDED. In the current bet, jungleman is not giving back the 1.3m or whatever he is already up, so that counts as part of the results. And if he somehow gets paid the 1.5m sidebet, or settles for another amount- you better believe you are on the hook for that amount if you bet against him.

Oh and full disclosure: I have no money on the match, I have known both parties for a long time but I am not friends with either really, and I have very good friends with money on both sides.

Anyone know clockwyze well, ask what would happen if people had side bets on match book or other betting sites.
09-11-2013 , 04:52 PM
BF didn't even mean that they couldn't play.
09-11-2013 , 04:55 PM
Viffer, Alaei isn't just claiming that the sidebet and future action are void, he's also claiming that all crossbooked action thus far is void too.

This thread needs Tom to come in and tell Viffer/Alaei to STFU. And also probably to just admit he's not going to finish the challenge and concede it.
09-11-2013 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
Let's notice btw there are exactly 2 people arguing on toms side here (not even tom himself would take their position imo), and both have heavy bets on Tom.

There are tons of people with no money on this, who are taking the JM side.
Are you questioning my integrity? Lets just make a huge wager and take this to arbitration? Would you expect someone to say hey i bet on jungleman but let me try not to argue?

Would nobody make this same argue,ent the other way if roles were reversed? If they would, then we have to if we dont we are getting freerolled.

Dont make us out to be bad people because we have a vallid position, if we dont or didnt then take my bets? Ill be happy to escrow.

As for tom not argueing this, he still wants to play and doesnt think hes in that bad of shape, its only 30 buy ins,

But what tom does or thinks is irelevant at this point to the people who bet on side.
09-11-2013 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
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.
Not sure if you are trying to be clever by this post but clearly not everyone who bet on this match is an active member of HSNL forum, right?

The reason I made that point was because the issue of side bettors is much closer than anyone seems to think and before I came in here it was literally viffer vs about 50 other people. Clearly unbalanced and if you talked to more people with gambling experience outside of 2+2 you will get much different responses.
09-11-2013 , 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Are you questioning my integrity? Lets just make a huge wager and take this to arbitration? Would you expect someone to say hey i bet on jungleman but let me try not to argue?

Would nobody make this same argue,ent the other way if roles were reversed? If they would, then we have to if we dont we are getting freerolled.

Dont make us out to be bad people because we have a vallid position, if we dont or didnt then take my bets? Ill be happy to escrow.

As for tom not argueing this, he still wants to play and doesnt think hes in that bad of shape, its only 30 buy ins,

But what tom does or thinks is irelevant at this point to the people who bet on side.
I am not questioning your integrity Viffer, I am simply saying that you may be biased in this situation and unable to see it clearly because you have money riding on it, that is all.
09-11-2013 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAEI
-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
Given Jungle is up 30 buyins, I don't think you are much at risk of getting freerolled.
09-11-2013 , 05:04 PM
I am going to be off the grid for about 24 hours but will be happy to respond to more posts when I return.
09-11-2013 , 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDan
Given Jungle is up 30 buyins, I don't think you are much at risk of getting freerolled.
Did jungleman have the money to play after black friday? I know a few times when he tried to barrow money from me. Nobody had money when tilt and stars owed the world.

Quote:
I am not questioning your integrity Viffer, I am simply saying that you may be biased in this situation and unable to see it clearly because you have money riding on it, that is all.
I will say this again, im willing to bet on me clarity vs yours.

Would you say you are rooting more for jungleman then tom? Wouldnt it be more finacuially bennificial to your social group if jiungle wins? Be honest?


Its not as clear as you think, and i think you know this.
09-11-2013 , 05:14 PM
seems bizarre that the people who bet tom's side are the ones so worried about getting freerolled
09-11-2013 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Did jungleman have the money to play after black friday? I know a few times when he tried to barrow money from me. Nobody had money when tilt and stars owed the world.



I will say this again, im willing to bet on me clarity vs yours.

Would you say you are rooting more for jungleman then tom? Wouldnt it be more finacuially bennificial to your social group if jiungle wins? Be honest?


Its not as clear as you think, and i think you know this.
I am sure there is an issue with confidentiality, and it's not my place to tell you who of my friends has money on what side. You are right though that there is more money amongst my friends on JM.
09-11-2013 , 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Did jungleman have the money to play after black friday? I know a few times when he tried to barrow money from me. Nobody had money when tilt and stars owed the world.

I don't have any inside information about jungleman's financial situation, but if Tom wanted to play, it would have been very easy for JM to get staked.
09-11-2013 , 05:16 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
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?
Any chance you'll answer this?
09-11-2013 , 05:17 PM
god, alaei, why did you have to go full ******

viffer, i never tried to borrow money from you...
09-11-2013 , 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cts
seems bizarre that the people who bet tom's side are the ones so worried about getting freerolled
The possability of being freerolled, along with the fact that we are being put at a disadvantage due to no fault of our own. No fault of anyones. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to move out of country to play online poker. If one does then he gains an unfair advantage, other shouldnt be penalised because they dont. What if tom didnt have a passport and couldnt leave the usa? Do you think this is the first time some thing like this has happened? Thats why gambling instatutioins have already made the rules.

Cts, do a little more research on this, your a smart guy. Put your self in our shoes

      
m