Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
Chan is one of the most straight-up people around. He's dead right o this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Treesong
Chan offered to arbitrate it and Timex told him to eff off.
I like them both based on their public postings, although Chan is the only one of the two I’ve met. I think Chan is wrong on the facts, the line clearly was intended to reflect the terms of challenge and I don’t think the site is required to detail every term of the challenge. I also think that books routinely cancel action when they have something inaccurately posted, it has happened to me many times and sometime painfully when I used to do sports betting arbitrage.
I do think that Timex was way too obnoxious in his initial response and only somewhat better as it went along. I don’t think he was required to arbitrate.
It also isn’t completely clear to me what Chan knew. If he was aware that Perkins was getting 9bb
before he posted his bets and still made a big issue of not getting his bet down, that’s a pretty bad look. I guess I’m ok with trying to get the line he thought he was getting, but when the book tells you it’s +9bb, you just accept the L and move on. At least one of the text exchanges he posted makes it look like he
knew about the 9bb before he made the bets. If that is true, I think pretty much everything about this is in Times’s favor. Other than the fact that he was unnecessarily abrasive in responding.