How is he unduly impacted by a rule change that only serves to speed up the process?

+1. You would think speeding up the pace of play would be a benefit to Tom as I'm guessing that when given the time, Jungleman has an edge when it comes to reviewing hands to develop counter strategies. From what I've read it seems that he's the type to put in the study hours, which doesn't seem to be the case as much with Tom.

jungle you going to answer my questions? or ignore and just make false statements?

"open to being unduly impacted"

Is the full wording of my phrase.

It is a requirement of a bet to remain valid that the terms of the bet do not change without the consent and agreement of both parties to the change.

When riders are introduced to amend the original challenge between the two players - both parties had to agree to the change - for those changes to be valid. Which I assume is what happened between Jungleman and Durrr, however all side-bettors were not (and to be fair, it is unreasonable to expect the challengers to be required to) able to consent nor agree to these changes.

Now - I assume the underlying basis for your objection is: the bet has not been substantially altered by the amendments. Which I think would be the argument advocates on behalf of the sidebettors who would object to the voiding of the bet would make.

I think it is sufficient to say - that because large financial penalties were imposed upon the flow or course of the bet - that this has an impact upon the bet. Furthermore, an arbitrator could easily do a "reasonable man" test that posits - would a reasonable man take into consideration financial time penalties when betting upon the match - I think most arbitrators would say yes.
As such, the bet has been "substantially" impacted or could be perceived to be by a "reasonable man" and thus is voided or at least needs both parties to agree to the new terms.

Jungle - all you need to do is state teh facts

I don't see how the financial penalties are relevant except insofar as their affect on the course of the bet. That impact, if any, is just to make durrrr and jungle play a certain amount of hands per month. Are you claiming that betters on the match could not have seen it coming that the match would proceed at the pace this new rule dictates? The fact that there's an enforcement mechanism is between jungle and durrrr-all that matters to the betters is the impact on the course of play, and the new dictated course of play is far from unforeseeable-it's pretty much what durrrr predicted before the match started!

I mean, seriously-this new modification doesn't alter the underlying question that was the primary basis of most people's bet, which is who is better at HUNL. On top of that there were always arbitrators picked out so betters were on notice that there may have to be some adjudications handed down that alter things.

Cliffs please

This whole thing shows the future is truly unpredictable. Back in 2010 when the challenge was originally issued and everybody was shipping in side bets thinking they had an edge one way or the other...Who would of thought at this point in 2013 things would be playing out like this?

IMO the penalty for not playing the challenge should be raised to 100k a month and all side bets should remain active.

its 40k for the first 2 months, but every 2 months the penalty increases by 10k... by december it will be 50k

Does he actually pay these fines or are they just tacked on to the total?

Welcome back, hope you had a good trip, looks like you have time again,

could you make a good valid arguement for both sides of this?

Thanks, trip was great. Don't have much time now that work started but I try to chime in when I can. If "this" is that the new 40k penalty should somehow void the bet then I definitely couldn't, I actually think using the penalty provision to alter or void the bet is ludicrous. If there were no money involved and durrrr and jungle just agreed to play 10k hands/month (or whatever the new number is) then surely nobody with sidebets could complain. I'm not sure how the fact they came up with an enforcement mechanism could possibly alter anything.

It is up to the side bettors to account for potential changes to the challenge before agreeing to terms.

viffer didn't ask for or require that the challenge remain the same, therefore he's SOL.

If I bet on a football game and then the star quarterback of the team I bet on gets injured, I don't get a refund. I can place a separate wager with the new information if I can find action, but I don't get to just void my original bet because I don't like the new terms.

Clearly he's not as Jungle has been asked this numerous times so far and doesn't respond.

* I have not done a detailed survey of the original terms.

With that in my mind,

I don't see how the financial penalties are relevant except insofar as their affect on the course of the bet.

"course of the bet" - surely how long the challenge goes has a material impact on the bet. If it was a 50k play till finished e.g. one session - that is clearly different than to the bet as it stands. So time does have a measurable impact upon people's perception of the possible outcome. And the problem for the arbitrator is - where to draw the line?
I would put it to you - that there is a big question begging?
Why have the riders if it was not designed to substantially impact the "course of the bet"?

Are you claiming that betters on the match could not have seen it coming that the match would proceed at the pace this new rule dictates?

The bettors could have had many assumptions about the pace and timing of the match - when they originally bet.
Having placed the riders on the bet - what bettors would have expected the pace and timing to be - would have changed.

So it is not so much whether or not - they could have foreseen it.

It is that what things they were and are now likely to have foreseen - are now two substantially different things.
e.g. 40k penalty per two months or 8k of hands probably makes it alot less likely that the bettors would foresee that the bet will take 3 years to complete. It is not that they could not conceive of it lasting 3 years - it is that they might change their opinion or their strength of their opinion if it was only ever going to be likely completed quickly.

Now I am not saying that durrr believed this : but say what you are saying is correct i.e. it's pretty much what durrrr predicted before the match started!

Lets just assume that some of the bettors who bet on durrr - did not know what durrr thought about the match - but who thought - well I think durrr will win because he will drag it out over a long period and Jungleman will grow impatient and durrr will then pounce.
That person could easily have not placed the bet in the first place if those riders of time penalties were in place from the begininng.


I mean, seriously-this new modification doesn't alter the underlying question that was the primary basis of most people's bet, which is who is better at HUNL.

There is no relevance to the "underlying question"...the bet is literally the bet. The bet was substantially altered.


On top of that there were always arbitrators picked out so betters were on notice that there may have to be some adjudications handed down that alter things

I need to think more deeply on this point. And my inclination is to suggest that this is the strongest part of your argument and I might need to parse the original terms of the role of the adjudicator.

The example you have described is not "new terms".

"New terms" - clearly means a change to the rules.

It would be as if the NFL changed one of the rules and the penalties for it midgame....i.e. like what defensive players can do to wide receivers...i.e. change the rules to stop the NE patriot pass defensive strategy.

digger,

when you bet on a challenge which has already had one installment proceed very slowly and not even technically finish, don't you think if you wan't any consideration wrt the time frame for completion that you need to have it stipulated before the wager is made?

its not like this was the 1st ever challenge and no one had any clue it might take a long time to complete, so it seems pretty unreasonable to then use that as an excuse to call off the wager.

and by the way it turns out i have a bet on tom i didn't even remember so if anything i would be biased towards arguing the side bets should be cancelled, but just seems ridic.

the only argument that could possibly be made is black friday (and i still think it should stand but i can see an argument being made) but saying the new agreements ie: 40K penalty has any bearing on the side bets is just absurd.

edit: also can we pls stop with the TERRIBLE sports analogies.

Hi, RBK.

I think what you are saying is precisely right but your conclusion is wrong.

It was a reasonable expectation that the challenge would last a long time....past experience of the durrr vs PA challenge.
Thus it is not unreasonable for any side bettor to base part of their reason for taking one side or the other based upon assumptions on the length of the game.
By substantially altering the timing....where substantial means
- adding time period and minimum hands
+
- 5 figure penalties that rachet up

.... this changes what the likely time period the bet will take place.

I do not think it is absurd to maintain that the amount of time for a challenge to take place impacts the challenge.
- longer challenge more likely either one of the players play may deteriorate or improve
ie. - greater time for research, coaching, adjustments, preparation changes.

Let's go back and assume those rider's were in place with time penalties for lack of play:

Do you think some people who did not have a side bet might have bet now?

Time penalties can have the largest impact of - whether someone actually places a bet or not.

Quotes from
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...15/index3.html

the best part about this challenge is that you know it's going to get up and running and done in a reasonable amount of time

is the challenge only for 4 tables or could they do 6? i could see these guys 6 tabling forever and pump it out in no time

Hell ****ing yea. And when it starts, you just know they're going to grind like crazy, so we wont have like 6months between each 1k hands sessions.

Can't wait for it to start. I hope jungleman wins and i think he's got a very big chance of shipping this.

GO !


These quotes are not to say - that you are wrong to say that people should have in expectation that it will take a long time. But that timing can clearly effect bettors mind's and that a wide variety of expectations are going to be taken in.
I would argue that there are alot of people who might have bet or didnt - i.e. whose decisions would have altered if there was a time penalties they include:

People who want an escrow.
People who do not ever want an escrow.

Both class of bettor - actions are materially changed by having the rider.

It is important to emphasise - it is not essential to my argument that the outcome could change.....that merely underlines the point.

The key is - whether or not the bet has materially changed.
If a whole class of bettors are more likely to be included - that underlines the impact time penalties can have on participation in the bet.


All of these things - would have an impact upon the deicision of an arbitrator.

Surely part of the point of ike/ZJ/Ivey overseeing the bet was to make sure that neither side could stall and take forever and part of the way of stopping that would be to impose financial penalties. Nothing changed about the bet, the arbitrators of the bet clearly always had the power to impose financial penalties for not playing, otherwise they couldn't have done it now. Therefore anyone who side-bet implicitly agreed that arbitrators may impose financial penalties on someone who is stalling. Just think how completely ridiculous a scenario would be in which 1 player could play 49,500 hands, be down 100 buy-ins and then refuse to play any more until a small financial penalty was imposed on him in order to void all the side bets and save his friends from having to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Take a step back and think about what you're saying. The scenario where someone stalls is exactly why there are arbitrators and whatever decision they make is clearly not a change to the terms of the bet, the bet included the fact that there were arbitrators. Every time I respond to a completely ridiculous argument in this thread I hate myself a bit lol but also I know if I don't I will probably also hate myself for reading the next 20 posts making the same ridiculous argument tomorrow .

Can someone provide a link to the full t & c of the bet?

I just don't understand why assumptions people may have had about the bet that weren't codified as conditions for the bet being valid have some sort of sway. Maybe I thought they'd 4-table the whole time but at some point they start 6-tabling. Maybe I thought they'd both take it so seriously they'd only play at predetermined times and rest up for the challenge but they end up playing a lot of sessions when durrrr's tired after playing some PLO. Maybe I thought jungle would study in between sessions but he gets lazy and doesn't. None of these unexpected but foreseeable changes would void the bet without a clause saying as much. You thought things would be different but you were wrong-that doesn't really matter.

I still ask: if we realize that it was always possible for the two of them to make a gentleman's agreement to play a certain amount of hands per month and if they had done so the bet would still be valid, how does an enforcement mechanism change anything?

Also +a million to what kanu said

I think you are out of your mind trying to bet with Viffer. And I say that as someone on jungleman's side in this whole debacle.

when i read this thread sometimes breathing becomes difficult

You idiots, people dont honor bets made three months ago, ungleman and justin both and these are the guys saying how stand up and honorable they are.

I wouldnt bet against me either im usually right.




Ill make this real simple, You all are a bunck of morons, ****ing idiots.


4575 dean martin dr # 3304
las vegas nevada.
Panorama towers.


anyone is welcome to come say any thing they want to my face, and come collect what ever money you think i owe.


Your click of keyboard warriors take turns jabbing and hiding and avoiding every thing, i see no way i could ever collect on this bet if i won. I cant even get the arbitrator to honor a bet he proposed, made me post for!! And it was only three months ago.

You guys are the cons and the angle shooters.

Hope everyone dies in grease fire.


I bought danny paid me to take his bets over for this, ariel you can also come collect from me.

Ariel assuming the bet is leagle, as a law student, looking at every thing that has happened do you think there are valid points why side bets should be called off? What percent of the time would you pay if roles were reversed? PLease answer hinestly and openly?