Not saying what it was he 'heard' is probably just as bad.

..but not as bad as all these people ITT who can't spell Shaun's name.

Both sides agreed on the bet and shook on it. Not sure in what world that isn't a bet.

I don't think we need any comparisons with sports bets, you can find perfect analogy in fantasy itself. It's like guys knowing that x player is injured and won't be playing, but Deeb not knowing that and drafting anyway.
But that's part of the fantasy skills. Whole point of fantasy is to use info like that.

I wonder who these people are.

People he still allows on PNIA, his wife and kids.

Can't disagree with that. I'm very curious what this info is.

This is a terrible analogy. It is more like making a bet on a game that currently doesn't have a line because the oddsmakers are unsure of a player's status. Then, once the player's status is determined and a line is public one of the people who made the bet tries to cancel.

It is clearly unethical. The $25k draft is dealing with a lot of uncertainty and subjective values. You don't get to make a bet and then decide to cancel it. Don't make the bet until you have the information you need.

There is nothing "weird" about approaching Shaun after the draft and offering the bet. It happened between almost all of the teams. Our team has $101,000 in side bets. Those didnt happen through osmosis, someone had to offer the bet, someone had to accept.

And there was no angle. You clearly dont understand the complexities of this draft or how it works. Half of the skill is in knowing people, what they are planning to play, what might take them away from their schedule, young players with backing that will play $10ks for the first time, etc. Someone drafted Eli Elezra despite the fact that he wont be playing any events.

The offer to Shaun had nothing to do with knowledge of a single player. It had to do with making side bets, which we did with teams that are, on paper, better than ours. In fact our largest side bet would likely be considered a dog.

It is likely that Shaun drafted a player he thought was playing a full schedule, made some side bets then found out that player isnt in fact playing a full schedule.

Has Shaun got sidebets with any other teams that are still live?
If so, I can only deduce that the information he received was about your team, not his.

Are you part of Team TurboRunGood? If so, could it be something to do with a certain $2 pick?

That's possible. We drafted one guy that few knew anything about. But I think it's more than likely someone on his team that we knew wasn't playing a full schedule and he obviously didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't see the second part, yes that's possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was all about the player on his team not playing a full schedule, surely he would've tried to back out of all other side bets.

I can only assume it's all about Georgiy Belyanin

You can buyout, negotiate, whatever but it has to be mutually agreed to. You can't just cancel a bet (for any fugging reason!!!)

If it turns out he thought he might be getting freerolled then you could say that the bet is off unless the money is held in escrow. Even that would be slightly shady as that was not the arrangement that was originally made (but at least there might be something to debate.)

This is clear cut and no debate is necessary.

Lol Russians that play in Macau scare me too.

thanks for contributing to my certainty that i made the right decision to never make a single friend within the poker community.

the amount of people that think like you is appalling. how in the **** is it ridiculous to hold an adult to his or her word?

Any news on the sam greenwood mikeyg thread that was taken down yesterday????

Probably a question better asked in the mod thread...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...hread-1285169/

thank you for handing down the moral decree, guy i've never heard of. i'm going to go ahead and debate it, though.

this thread is pretty absurd and it's my opinion that rzitup's actions of starting this thread and attempting to damage shaun's reputation are much more slimy than anything shaun did.

first we must dispense with the analogies to not being able to cancel a bet at a sportsbook. if books allowed bets to be cancelled, big money bettors could move the line any way they want by just placing bets and then cancelling them. their cancellation policy has NOTHING to do with any kind of morality regarding voiding a contract that has been made, which is what this argument is really about.

a much better analogy would be a wager at a craps table. a craps bet is a bet between you and the casino on the outcome of an event. the event is the roll of the dice. the player is allowed to call off some bets before the dice are thrown. in fact, you can call off the bet verbally the moment right before the dice are released. this is much more analogous to what shaun did.

the only difference in these two scenarios is that the ability to call off the bet is built into the contract between the player and the casino.

since both shaun and rzitup's crew made absolutely no effort to specify the terms of the contract before agreeing to it, an arbitrator such as myself would be forced to use reason to decide on a solution that is reasonable.

when you boil their contract down, it comes down to them both agreeing to, "if x happens, I will do y" with no other stipulations.

to me, it appears abundantly reasonable for one side of the contract to declare they are no longer going to do y, as long as it's before x has the potential to happen. this is not violating the contract, it's voiding the contract before it takes effect.

rzitup's crew appears to be operating under the ethic that neither side may void the contract for any reason, ever, even if x couldn't have happened yet. this sort of conclusion can only emerge from the warped mind of a professional gambler.

it is completely unreasonable to assume a contract made on a handshake between acquaintances should have this lack of flexibility, especially when rzitup's side made no effort to specify any additional terms of the contract. in fact, a normal person would assume a contract like this would have more flexibility than a contract mediated through a 3rd party.

if shaun had called off the bet after the series had started, or decided not to do y after x happens, rzitup would have an actual grievance.

this thread is the result rzitup suffering from butthurtitis because shaun wouldn't pay their "buyout" (a.k.a. holding his reputation hostage for ransom). he's operating like a thug, not some sort of gambling moral authority operating on a higher plane.

As a random outsider who's knee jerk reaction was the opposite opinion, that makes a ton of sense.

augie_

But in craps there is no relevant knowable information that can be gained between placing the bet and throwing the dice(unless it's the odds, like, "oh, they aren't in my favor? I'll withdraw my bet then".

Once you make a bet, even if something unforeseeable happens, like a star player gets killed, the bet is still on and it's just too bad.

You sound like someone that needs a drink.

After discussing with some of his friends, Shaun has decided to allow the bet to stand. Good on him and much respect.

Mods, delete this thread if you deem it necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure thing, guy I've never heard of.

you would want the evidence of your thuggery deleted

what you've posted doesn't contradict or even address what i said!

I think you are really really really over thinking and misinterpreting his "I heard something and have to cancel" as "i learned important information so now I am cancelling". To me, it just sounds like a generic excuse, like when you break plans with someone because you don't feel like going out "oh sorry something came up". He probably made the bet with hesitation, then 30 minutes later decided he didn't want to do it and wanted to back out for personal reasons.