This...

Why would the person freeroll themselves to `bet on the arbitration`vs a person who already hasn`t paid them (allegedly) unless you were going to escrow all the money you (allegedly) owe + the bet amount.

You would do it if the money by both sides to cover the debt and bet was paid in-Trust (to a lawyer's or the Arbitration firm's Trust account, not another poker player obviously) only to be released according to the independent Arbitrator's decision.

Otherwise, no.

You agreeable to that Viffer?

All bets are freerolls if one person has the ability to not pay.

Just draw up a contract.

Viffer, I don't see how arbitration solves the issue because it'll still come down to he said vs she said and an arbiter is not going to have the information or tools available to figure out which party is lying or which party misunderstood a wager.

The best solution is for both parties to consent to having an audio/video recording of their wagers. Everyone has a smartphone these days so this is easy to accomplish. Even if you're not there in person to do the wager there are apps available to record cell calls (at least on Android phones).

Disputes like this should be settled w/ an NVG poll..

It's not a complete freeroll. Before arbitration the person who thinks he's owed has some % chance of getting paid back. If he loses arbitration he has a 0% chance. I do kinda like your point tho.

Disputes like this should be settled in the .......... CUBE

You're theory is interesting. My theory is if someone really believes they don't owe someone something, they want the details known so everyone can logically see why the money isn't owed. People who act shady about details and/or have reason not to share despite asking for arbitration, most likely owe money to the other person.

The person who thinks he's owed should never agree to bet on the arbitration. Say he is owed 10k. At this point he will either get 10k or zero or perhaps a percentage of 10k.
If he agrees to the new bet, his choices are now to get 10k, get zero, get some other amount or actually lose the new bet amount.(say 5k)
He can actually lose money even if he is actually owed the original 10k but the arbitrator makes a bad decision. I think he is better off to agree to pay for the arbitration, but not bet on it.
No need to risk more money because an arbitrator can easily screw up.

Viffer has a bet with Jungle on durrr challenge and said if jungle wins he just wont pay: not sure if there are any seperate debts

No, not really from an EV standpoint. To make the bet, you'd only think you need to win the arbitrator's side > 50% of the time (assuming money is escrowed). While in the example I gave, some random making idiotic claims about Phil Ivey, Phil Ivey would think he would win in arbitration like 95%+, so if the money was escrowed and worth his time, it would be an easy bet to make, even if Ivey thought he only had a 55% chance of winning, it'd probably be a pretty good bet to make. However, from a liar's perspective, they'd only need a 1%+ chance to have an arbitration be +EV from their perspective without the side bet. Think of betting on the outcome of the arbitration as like like a normal court case, (which is flawed and has some % of incorrect decisions) except the loser has to pay the winner's "court costs". This kind of "punishment" (court costs/betting on outcome) for losing frivolous lawsuits/arbitrations helps keep frivolous lawsuits/arbitrations from happening in the first place, although it can occasionally be a double whammy for the innocent that gets screwed by a bad decision. If you the bankroll to make the sidebet though (or someone willing to bankroll you for the bet), it's often a no-brainer for the innocent party.

I'm gonna have to go with viffs side on this just because every time I've seen shaundeeb on TV he's been a completely unlikable douchebag with no self awareness or sense of humor. Whereas viff likes to make big suckouts on phil hellmuth while screaming out "nine ball corner pocket!"

sdeeb probably doesn't want an arbitrator because he knows no one will ever favor him over viff in an argument lol.

This is not exactly true or at least misleading. You go to an arbitrator when the person that thinks he's owed isn't going to get paid because of some dispute. So while they have some % chance, that % chance is usually less than 1%. You don't go to arbitration when you think there's like a 50% chance you'll get paid back, or even like a 20% chance. Arbitration is basically a last resort conflict resolution.

Did I read the twitter right where deeb is questioning viffers sex appeal? I mean DEEB of all people?? LOOOL

Here is another situation where i offered to bet 250k who was right. You guys like to just accuse people, I will still offer my 250k to anyone that wants it.

PLease dont accuse me of things if your not willing to bet on it.


I will be happy to escrow the money Shawn says i owe, plus another 20k. He just has to put up 20k.


JungleMan and the rest of the village idiots ( who i have gained some respect for ) can still make the same bet we tried to make many years ago.

If you arent illing to bet on some thing you are usually wrong.

Escrow the bet with Ivey

Viffer/Deeb/Jungle.

Do you ever look in the mirror and think, 'What the f am I doing with my life? What have I actually achieved?'

wait Deebs going around calling other men "ogre". mkay glass houses... i think hes calling him an ogre but i cant really be 100% with that sentence structure.

"you gay,you ugly, you virgin". Shakespeare deeb is not.

Well, according to his Twitter tag line he is only a part time father to his child. So that right there tells you the kind of person he is.

So true. Viffer is the illest if he's illing to bet on this. And one of my favorite poker playa/TV entertainer. Destroying "white magic" was sick.

U can also say ppl who have no intention of paying regardless of the outcome of arbitration r free rolling

This thread is worthless unless viffer discloses how much money we are talking about here.

I don't know him or know anything about him but having split custody may just mean him and the baby mama aren't together anymore. Since 50% of marriages end in divorce this doesn't mean much at all.

Now if dude were to go in hiding on father's day Shawn Kemp style that's ****ed

Everything doesn't have to be a bet. Your logic is very flawed and seems to be clouded by a gambling addiction. Most people are comfortable having a disagreement or dispute with someone without feeling like they need to bet money to make their point. That is, assuming they have a point to make.

Has reading comprehension in NVG really gone down by this much, or am I just uniquely able to read viffenese?

That sure seems like a square deal to me. I mean, surely Deeb can come up with that much scratch, right?