Lucid,

Admitting you would argue the other side is consistent with believing there's legitimate uncertainty about what is correct. It's also consistent with being scummy. I don't have a problem with thinking the former to be the situation, and that viffer isn't great at expressing himself. I haven't read everything he's written, though.

He then goes on to argue 1 point and 1 point only for every single post, loses basically every discussion with every person that responded, rinse, repeat.

All he cares about is the money no matter which side he's on rather than what is actually fair.

In nevada they are. Lets pick from there.

sorry for the derail, but looking for top player with strong mathematical background that is coaching at the moment, any suggestions? is there even any out there?

You sure? I'm under the impression that Nevada is one of the least friendly states for gambling that takes place outside a casino / without a license.

We will assume that the bet was taken by a casino if you would like.

IM going to bet 5k that justin and i never make a bet on this .

hes going to nit pick every thing.

Viff, I don't think you understand the difference between knowledge and bias. Having knowledge of BF, UIGEA, Durrrr Challenge, etc. is a good thing for an arbitrator, not a bad thing.

How about we choose successful business men that have been part of the poker world?

Taylor Caby, Richard Brodie, Telal Shakerchi, etc.?

If the bet were taken by a casino, the rules would be very clearly written and there would be no ambiguity. If the rules weren't clearly written, whatever side the casino is on loses. This doesn't help us at all.

Ya, I'm the one being unreasonable here. I gave you a list of 100 names. You claim they all have too much information. WTF is wrong in your head?

I dont want to be judged by poker players, they have friends that have action, or opions.

college proffessors in gambling fields?

Having friends with opinions is not a bad thing lol. Why not just pick guys that like Tom more than Dan.

Taylor Caby for example would be perfect. He goes way back with Tom and certainly has immense respect for him, but has no history with Dan (afaik). He runs a sports betting site, and you originally wanted to go that direction.

How the **** are we going to find college professors in gambling fields that would listen to this drivel? If you can find reputable ones, then sure, we can ask them if bets made in 2010 should still be paid.

Edit: Didn't Brandon Adams teach a course? We could go with him. Also, you can even use your earlier suggestion of Clockwyze as one of the judges (again, the condition that you haven't already talked to him about this is in place).

He's also called out people for refusing to answer his questions, then refused to answer some questions that I've asked four times. Pretty clear he's just trolling at this point.

Let's just think about this for a minute please.

When you make a bet, you're accepting some risks inherent to the bet. There's no doubt about that.

However, if you think about this with your head and not with your wallet, you will come to realize that the fact that one of the top5 online HU NLHE specialists (at the time when the bet was made) didn't played online poker for 3 years, isn't a risk inherent to this bet in particular.

As Viffer said, BF was na act of god. No one could predict it. And you now want to convice him that it was a risk inherent to his bet?

Let's just reverse the roles for a moment, let's imagine that durrrr was up 1M after 25k hands played when jungleman got arrested for life without the possibility of parole. What would you guys argue in this situation?

Clockwyze would work, i have never talked to him,

Brandon adams would work, but i have had very brief discussion with him, and he told me to stop argueing, you could ask him a few questions.

actually brandon adams and i are to close for him to be a judge.

BF is not the reason they aren't playing, so stop mentioning BF. They didn't play before BF and they aren't playing now when Tom is out of the country.

Jail I actually think is a debatable situation. Some would argue the fault is all Dan's, because he's in jail. Others would say it's akin to getting into a car crash and being paralyzed. I would suggest something like JM forfeits 90% of the side bet and if he somehow gets out (appeals or whatever), then he has the right to continue the challenge again for the next 3-5 years.

Excellent. Suggest at least 2 more that are realistic.

maybe greg raymer

Also, claiming that they could've resume the challange one week after BF happened is just a joke. It took one year for jungleman to play on pokerstars again (as you can see here: http://www.highstakesdb.com/profiles.../w00ki3z..aspx ) - just to clarify i'm not saying that jungleman didn't played online poker for a year, just saying he didn't played it on stars, the only reputable site where the challange could've resumed.

Not to mention (again) the fact that resuming the challenge on any other site would've decrease the chances of full tilt poker players getting their money back (the challenge/durrrr was a valuable asset of the company). But i'm just repeating myself.

Do you or any of your friends have knowledge of his or match books position on this?


Ill be back in vegas next week,

Hmm?

I'm not saying durrrr and jungle aren't playing because of BF. I'm arguing the position of sidebeters due to that event.

One thing is the bet made between durrrr and jungleman. Other thing is the side bets...

I was under the impression that the difference was crystal clear.

Am I the only one that finds it funny that the phrase "act of God" is being used to describe a legal proceeding started by a government agency?

and the UIGEA was 2006

"Act of God" as an event that wasn't foreseen by anyone in the poker community.

The point of what he was saying....you missed it.

can anyone give me the link to the full tilt stats on the jungleman challenge?

no stats available it seems.