Wait. You DID accept a HU challenge for a set number of hands.

So let's break this down yeah?

- Random dude posts here ends up challenging you to set number of hands and a sidebet.

- You say to this random person "sure, I'll escrow money for the sidebet and will play you a set number of hands at 400NL as long as you show proof of who you are"

- You find out who he is, know that any number of MS regs would vouch for him so you decide he's NOT trustworthy and you would not escrow money for the sidebet as well as making it clear you don't accept HU challenges for set numbers of hands (even tho earlier ITT you were fine with it )


Yup, no inconsistencies here


That being said, I do think most posters actually misunderstood Marshall's statement

The way I read this is that if he escrows $3k, this would be a significant portion of his bankroll and so he wouldn't be able to play the same stakes of 6m as he did before.

I guess 3k goes a looong way at MSNL

I said I'd escrow 3k and play 5k hands at 400nl. I don't go back on my word. He keeps putting up this charade that he wants to play higher though because he knows I don't want to. If he wants to play for that offer I'll play.

When I said "I don't challenge other people to HU matches and I don't accept challenges" I suppose I should have been more explicit to make sure you understood that I meant it's not my general practice to do so. Jesus, you guys really do hang on every word I type don't you?

He already dodged me once and now he's trying to dig himself out of a hole to avoid looking bad. Clearly it's about his ego because he would stop with all of this "lets escrow money" business and just come play if that's what he really wanted. -- especially after he agreed with me about keeping with the spirit of the game--yet wants to play me, someone he assumes is going to be pretty good in a super high stakes match? Talk about a huge inconsistency, that's one if I ever heard it.

And the part about inconsistencies had to do with a specific statement that dude made ... I didn't want to explain it, but obviously I have to since you all are so eager to point out I'm wrong when you just aren't reading the posts in full or aren't understanding what's being said....

Dude said "For example, zach offered to play you 400-2knl... then specifically said 600nl and you asked for it to be 400nl 1 post later? Now you say the limits are too low for you"

He doesn't realize the difference between the variance in heads up versus the variance in 6max. He thinks I should assume the same amount of risk of ruin in a HU match versus a 6max match. He called this an inconsistency in my posting. Obviously it's not.

I assume most of the people writing up some of these ridiculous responses aren;t even winning players, or maybe they are rakeback pros...

And yeah... given the current state of online poker in the US, I don't keep more than 20k online ever. Split between multiple sites ... 3k is plenty to 4 table 2/4.

Wtf are you on about? Where did i ever infer this? I know about the difference in variance between 6m and hu. How do you think people are going to be able to know that your online roll is short when earlier in the thread you're happily accepting a hu challenge at any stake?

You keep tripping over yourself making the same point you're arguing against. Instead of saying at the start either a) I don't want to or b) don't have the roll too at the moment, you're inconsistent and decide to just go on an ego war with Zach, agreeing to play him hu at whatever stakes... Then you come back X posts later and say, "nah, my BR is too small ".... Huh? Then why the **** go through this whole charade in the first place if you knew that? Either your ego got in the way at the start of this thread or you felt the need to make an excuse up now. So my point stands, you are inconsistent in this thread.

And that's the stupid thing though, being inconsistent isn't a crime, turning down a challenge for no reason isn't a crime either but you just can't help yourself (just like you can't just laugh it off now). Most people don't have anything against you but instead of just being straight up saying "thanks but no thanks" you feel the need to belittle people and patronise those that disagrees with you, just like you did in that scammer thread. Yeah it's annoying how this thread targeted you, but you just really don't help yourself in these instances either. You just can't grasp how/why you are perceived as you are on here.

Anyway, i'm staying out of it now. You and zach can argue amongst yourselves.

Marshall, I don't think Zachav ever said he wouldn't do the $3k sidebet for 5k hands of 400NL. He just said he's prefer more hands which is fair enough. Set it up then. Make a new thread.

Yeah I'll still do that if you want, just prefer more hands and more monies.

I don't trust you to make any bet for a reasonable amount of money. I have to take into consideration I'm getting cheated some % of the time so I have to minimize that risk.

We'll play 45min-1hr sessions 4 tabling 2/4 at most 2 per week til the 5k hands are completed. Whoever is up dollar wise at the end wins the 3k side bet. If it's within 3 buy ins in either direction I think we should call the side bet a wash because 5k hands in HU is really difficult to determine a skill advantage and a clear cut winner unless it's really obviously lopsided.

I need your Merge ID. And we need to agree on a mediator and a person to hold the escrow. I'd be comfortable w/ PatM, Hunter Bryce, Aaron Jones, Scott Augustine or Reid Young.

Yii-ha! One time!

do either of you have stars?

popcorn.jpg

any1 wanna bet on this match

Does anybody think Marshall has a chance?

EDIT: Can we rename the thread if its on?

What's going on in here?

more than 5k hands

Marshall28, cardrunners pro and alleged 2000nl reg Hu v 2p2's zachvac

5k hands. MSNL's finest. Let's have it!

It's not a charade. I'll play 5k hands of 400nl. I said I would. If you don't back it will happen. I'm just seeing if you will go higher. If you would I would but if you don't want to 5k hands of 400nl with a 3k side bet is fine.

LOL wtf are you talking about?

Are you trolling me or are you just retarded? Escrowing money helps eliminate rake (the money at the tables will be raked, side bet will not) and makes the stakes a bit higher. It also locks you into playing a certain # of hands.

True

False

False. But hey, 1/3 ain't bad.

wtf are you talking about? How can I cheat you? If you're worried about it being me playing we can do webcams.

Wait so you don't want to play more hands but then want to call the side bet off if the margin is 3 bi or less? That's the reason I wanted to play 20k hands instead of 5k hands anyway. I still think the better policy is to just say whoever's net is higher (both of us could potentially be negative after this match) wins the 6k in escrow but if you want to say it has to be a 3+ bi margin for it to count then sure I'm fine with that as well, whatever it takes to make this match happen.

I'm ReDLiNeMaKeDiKHaRd on merge. Not sure who most of these people are, but Reid is shootaaa or something right? I'm comfortable with him.

Oh and in terms of availability my best time to play is evenings/nights on most weekdays and I should also be available sometimes on the weekends.