Wasn't the stipulation that the legality of the bet is irrelevant?

lol, i really would like the bet to be legally enforceable or have any relevance to the law

Viffer,

Just for clarity, are the any circumstances for which u'd accept to honor ur xbook bet? Say they do end the match and play the 50k hands, would u agree to pay what u owe to jungle or depending on some factors and which?

Hes a great example of soemone who can afford to win, but couldnt afford to lose. Who had tons of money before black friday.

http://igaming.org/poker/interview/s...erstar/page-2/


No disrespect to scott at all, just an example.

scott can afford to pay. He had over 1m on stars on BF, in additions its not like we arent getting the money back from FT

why doesnt scott play much? He was a great player? One of the best in 2010.

Viffer has said he will pay if people rule the bet is still on.

He is just trying to angle his way into making the bet called off.

I do think people should chill on the "your not gonna pay". That stuff can be very damaging and it does not appear to be true. From ZJ's and Jungles perspective, I'de be alot more worried about making sure the (judges, arbitraitors, ect) know the bet is still on(and presenting facts that support your case). And alot less worried about actually getting paid, atleast until Viffer shows otherwise.

Bad things happen to people who don't pay.

zee and jungle I hope U get nothing at all

U are both proven cheats omfg , Zee as an arbitrator is the worst joke in history of 2+2.

And he`s got a bet on jungle ? U can`t be serious

lol

Why is everyone who has Tom action counting him out? The challenge is still on until him and jungle play it out or settle.

Most likely multi accounting after black Friday from some random Canada account?

I cannot believe you're still trotting this "argument" out, as it has been destroyed multiple times.

You don't get to presume that someone might not be able to pay and use that as partial reasoning for voiding a bet.

Is. This. Real. Life.

IM not counting him out at all, im just saying The circumstances have changed, drastictly and, one Justin and ike arent qualified to arbitrate any more, and people shouldnt still be obligated to bet on him.

PLus jungleman pissed me off, Bothered me 50 times during wsop, i told him if he asked me one more time about it he would be sorry!!!! Then defender of universe Justin jumped in and now he going to lose money. Its going to be a win win for me.

Im interested what unbiased arbitrators say.

I can't believe a long time gambler typed this out.

These are all things you negotiate BEFORE you make the bet. :banghead:

What if i have a side bet with someone who 100% couldnt pay if he lost? He went from being a big backer to being staked to washing dishes in the 3 year period? What happens to my side bet in this circumstance?

3 years, Doj indictments, i think are mitigating circumstances.


Lets just let the arbitrators tell me im wrong, im just trying to find out whats right. All major bettors have told me i have a great case. Poker players arent gamblers. They are more like cat fish!!!

He still owes you....

You assumed that risk if you didn't escrow.

then the side bettors should take up their issue with the other party that they bet with. just like a sports bettor takes his issue up with the bookie. he doesn't go to the yankees and complain to them about quitting after the 4th inning, nor does he complain to the redsox who want to finish the game while the yankees want to train again. nor does he complain to the home plate umpire who is arbitrating the game

this has nothing to do with the durrr/jungle bet, which is clearly still on, and should have been on at all times. black friday affected both equally.

edit/
obv i have no idea who the side bets are with

Sums that up for you viffer in terms even you should be able to understand

headinthesand.jpg

This is literally the reason escrow exists!

Viffer is wrong on every count.

I find it baffling that Viffer keeps arguing with the same thing over and over again "What if I bet with someone who can't pay to me, what then?". This is absolutely irrelevant to the situation, I almost can't fathom how bad this argument is and how someone (presumably) smart person can keep saying this

Betting hundreds of thoudands of dollars without contract is quite risky, as there is always a chance someone will freeroll you. You never know who ends up being a scammer, I guess Viffer's reputation was good enough to bet without written contract (although verbal contract is just as binding as written, only harder to prove) but now it really looks like he is going the same route as Mr. Rheem.

He is also avoiding direct questions which makes his actions look super shady, like 1. Are you going to honor the bet if they finish the challenge or settle? 2. Is the bet with ZeeJustin also determining the outcome of the bet you have with Jungle?

viffer was accused of welching on a bet before.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...iggins-827630/

OK you guys convinced me, where do i send a check too?