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 , 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman
god, alaei, why did you have to go full ******

viffer, i never tried to borrow money from you...
Bet on that?
09-11-2013 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
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.
Could your judgment be a little clouded? Is it really fair to say you have no horse in this race?


Would you like to bet on how a judge would rule? Have you discussed this with ariel? Has he researched it at all? Im guessing yes, and i am not as crazy as you would like to believe.

Anyways, i will offer to bet again on my opion.
09-11-2013 , 05:29 PM
Jungle-

Try not to handle these discussions as bad as possible. Think about what Scott said to you last time. Don't call people ******s, don't curse at people. Just stop, relax, and post rational statements that make sense. This isn't a school yard fight, we are adults discussing a very high stakes issue (and the stakes are highest for you). Act like an adult.
09-11-2013 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
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
i don't know **** about betting on sports so maybe i'm just clueless here and i won't pipe in any more. i would have viewed a bet that i personally made on a match like this exactly like Ansky described earlier -- mirroring tom/dan's bet.
09-11-2013 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
Jungle-

Try not to handle these discussions as bad as possible. Think about what Scott said to you last time. Don't call people ******s, don't curse at people. Just stop, relax, and post rational statements that make sense. This isn't a school yard fight, we are adults discussing a very high stakes issue (and the stakes are highest for you). Act like an adult.
heh, was making a joke this time. Didnt you see that movie? Fair enough I'll refrain from using derogatory language at all. Ill let you guys battle this out I suppose... If things dont go so well I got a little ace up my sleave

@viffer, If I temp asked to borrow while at aria or something it was because I had no money at aria and wanted to play a game, not because I was broke.

Last edited by jungleman; 09-11-2013 at 05:46 PM.
09-11-2013 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cts
i don't know **** about betting on sports so maybe i'm just clueless here and i won't pipe in any more. i would have viewed a bet that i personally made on a match like this exactly like Ansky described earlier -- mirroring tom/dan's bet.
I totally agree under normal circumstances, but these circumstances are not forseeable, in noones control, and created a position where someone could gain an unfair advantage. People who bet on the side shouldnt be penalized because tom didnt move to europe and continue to play online poker. When we bet on tom he was playing online daily, that has changed.


I wish people would bet on there opinion, I wish people would bet on there statments. Would make this world a better place.
09-11-2013 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Could your judgment be a little clouded? Is it really fair to say you have no horse in this race?


Would you like to bet on how a judge would rule? Have you discussed this with ariel? Has he researched it at all? Im guessing yes, and i am not as crazy as you would like to believe.

Anyways, i will offer to bet again on my opion.
I have no horse in this race, and if I am rooting for JM at all it is because I think he has acted in better fairness towards the completion of the challenge, certainly not because I like him better.
09-11-2013 , 05:47 PM
Viffer, Dwan stopped playing MONTHS AND MONTHS before bf happened. Quit ignoring this point. There's a good chance things would have progressed the same even if FTP hasn't gone down. You aren't the victim of unforeseen circumstances, you're the victim of who you bet on and you don't get a walk because they lost, got discouraged, and stopped playing.
09-11-2013 , 05:49 PM
Can we get a clarification of your position viffer?

Suppose you had a 10% xbook, and a 50k side bet with someone. Is your position that you owe them 0?
09-11-2013 , 05:51 PM
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.
seriously guys, i have yet to see a single argument in favor of durrr that isn't obvious bull****

it's clear durrr has been trying to avoid finishing for multiple years now while clearly being able to play

and i'm sure everyone who plays nlhu in 2013 would say jungleman has a giant edge on durr. I WONDER WHY HE'S TRYING TO DUCK
09-11-2013 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheet
Viffer, Dwan stopped playing MONTHS AND MONTHS before bf happened. Quit ignoring this point. There's a good chance things would have progressed the same even if FTP hasn't gone down. You aren't the victim of unforeseen circumstances, you're the victim of who you bet on and you don't get a walk because they lost, got discouraged, and stopped playing.
We dont care what tom did or didnt do, doesnt have any thing to do with us, We shouldnt be put at an unfair advantage.

If jungleman autism went from guiness to ****** and he couldnt hold a mouse what would would happen? The fact is its been three years and things have changed and it could of gone either way.
09-11-2013 , 05:53 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?
After what you posted in this thread you wonder why people don't take your offer to bet?

You'd prob claim there's a reasonable argument that all bets should be void just because a judge gets the flu.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if I should get to know more poker players rather than grinding in my cave. Then stuff like this keeps happening. ****ing scumbags.
09-11-2013 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
Can we get a clarification of your position viffer?

Suppose you had a 10% xbook, and a 50k side bet with someone. Is your position that you owe them 0?
Sorry I want to expand this.

Is your position that you owe them 0, no matter what happens moving forward?

What if Tom settles the bet and agrees to pay JM 500k. Is your position still that you owe 0? What if they continue the rest of the challenge and are breakeven for the rest of play?
09-11-2013 , 05:54 PM
Comparing the bet to a sports bet on one game is ridiculous. A game is started and finished in a matter of hours. This bet was expected to last a couple of months. It is much more similar to a season win totals bet. Now, if you bet the over on the New Orleans Saints win total this year and next week a hurricane displaces them from playing at home all season would the book cancel your bet? Absolutely not.

"When we bet on tom he was playing online daily, that has changed."

You chose your horse knowing the type of player and person he is. Once again, if you bet on a teams win total and then the QB develops a drug habit you don't get to call the bet off. That is your fault for not doing your due diligence to understand what would happen to your horse under adverse conditions.
09-11-2013 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansky
Sorry I want to expand this.

Is your position that you owe them 0, no matter what happens moving forward?

What if Tom settles the bet and agrees to pay JM 500k. Is your position still that you owe 0? What if they continue the rest of the challenge and are breakeven for the rest of play?
No i dont think people would owe 0 that would be unfair.
09-11-2013 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Help
Comparing the bet to a sports bet on one game is ridiculous. A game is started and finished in a matter of hours. This bet was expected to last a couple of months. It is much more similar to a season win totals bet. Now, if you bet the over on the New Orleans Saints win total this year and next week a hurricane displaces them from playing at home all season would the book cancel your bet? Absolutely not.

"When we bet on tom he was playing online daily, that has changed."

You chose your horse knowing the type of player and person he is. Once again, if you bet on a teams win total and then the QB develops a drug habit you don't get to call the bet off. That is your fault for not doing your due diligence to understand what would happen to your horse under adverse conditions.
yes but if you bet the over and they went 0-15 and didnt play the last game at all, you wouldnt lose your bet, it would be called off.

What if a strike came in and now thet had all new replacment players, or if they shortned the season. Any thing to change a leevel playing field.

Toms right to practice daily from home was taken away from him, expecting someone to leave the coutry to is unreasonable.
09-11-2013 , 06:08 PM
This bet has nothing to do with how a sports books would handle the situation. Potentially being freerolled at this point is not a reason for the bet to be nullified. You chose the character you bet with, if you chose poorly that is on you.

A bet is a bet is a bet. That is the gamblers way. Respect the bet.

If you feel that things outside of your control affect the bet so strongly that it justifies modifying the bet, then you should of placed clauses within the bet for your own security. This part is on you.

An example comes to mind when Ivey placed the no meat for a year bet, he instantly thought to put a clause that if he ate meat unknowingly it would not lose the bet. As he knew that without the clause that could and would lose him the bet.
09-11-2013 , 06:09 PM
I'm sure some young hotshot working for a national newspaper could have a field day with this
09-11-2013 , 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
yes but if you bet the over and they went 0-15 and didnt play the last game at all, you wouldnt lose your bet, it would be called off.
but they aren't going to stop. they are either going to play or tom is going to buy out. and either result means your bet still stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
What if a strike came in and now thet had all new replacment players, or if they shortned the season. Any thing to change a leevel playing field.
tom and jungle have not been replaced by ivey and isildur. there are no replacements. they are not shortening the terms of the bet either. the field is still level. the same thing happened to both of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
Toms right to practice daily from home was taken away from him, expecting someone to leave the coutry to is unreasonable.
so was dan's. and they both left the country. neither has complained that it is unreasonable. you don't get to say that it is unreasonable when tom hasn't himself once indicated that it was. maybe tom thinks it gave him a bigger edge because he would be more comfortable abroad than dan would be!
09-11-2013 , 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by -sham-
This bet has nothing to do with how a sports books would handle the situation. Potentially being freerolled at this point is not a reason for the bet to be nullified. You chose the character you bet with, if you chose poorly that is on you.

A bet is a bet is a bet. That is the gamblers way. Respect the bet.

If you feel that things outside of your control affect the bet so strongly that it justifies modifying the bet, then you should of placed clauses within the bet for your own security. This part is on you.

An example comes to mind when Ivey placed the no meat for a year bet, he instantly thought to put a clause that if he ate meat unknowingly it would not lose the bet. As he knew that without the clause that could and would lose him the bet.
A sports book would call off the action not due to being freerolled, but due to the fact that the players werent allowed to play. To much time has passed, and unfair advantages could be gained.

What if ivey got kidnapped and was forced to eat meat, would he lose? Or should he put that clause in there? There is an act of god clause in alot of contracts, and if the doj doesnt count as one here i dont know what would.
09-11-2013 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
T 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?
This is an interesting point that would merit some consideration if not for the obvious fact that TOM ACTUALLY DID MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY TO PLAY BOTH LIVE AND ONLINE POKER
09-11-2013 , 06:16 PM
Sportsbooks don't have these bet voiding rules because they are the fairest rules for both parties. They have them to protect themselves. Regardless of the relevance of any analogies, just because a sportsbook that sets its own rules uses them does not mean that a bet between two equal parties should adhere to them.
09-11-2013 , 06:16 PM
this has nothing to do with how a sports book would handle the situation.

what if someone slipped something in iveys food at dinner. he ate meat. hes smart enough to put the clause in. prevent yourself from being hustled.

did you put an act of god clause in your contract? Would help you out a lot right now.

btw I bet on Durrrr too.
09-11-2013 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by viffer
yes but if you bet the over and they went 0-15 and didnt play the last game at all, you wouldnt lose your bet, it would be called off.

What if a strike came in and now thet had all new replacment players, or if they shortned the season. Any thing to change a leevel playing field.

Toms right to practice daily from home was taken away from him, expecting someone to leave the coutry to is unreasonable.
Didn't durrrr leave the country anyway to play live games in Macau?

Even if we agree with your point, what do you think about the fact that he was indeed in a situation in which he could play online, but chose not to? Doesn't that matter at all in your consideration of what happened?

Sure, he thought there was (obviously) more value in playing drunk chinese billionaires than in playing (arguably) the best HUNL online player at the time, but what about his commitment to the bet, and what about the value that Cates lost during all that time?

(I have no horse in this race and am a huge fan of both players, I'm just trying to look at this from a logical perspective)
09-11-2013 , 07:24 PM
Viffer,
Is your claim that bookies would say the bet is void based on anything other than your own opinion?

      
m