Well I explained why the hyperbole defense is not valid for most parts of the video but the mods have deleted the post. My bet offer still stands, as in my previous posts.

Wisdom, iirc you came into this thread all but guaranteeing Daniel would sue Doug and/or Srsly. Then you make some ticking time bomb offer where you get 8/1 odds and someone has 6 hours to find an escrow and tie up $4k for a year. Oh by the way, possible plaintiffs can now include the Choice Center, a cult.

Your original point, I thought, was that Dnegs had a good case for defamation. You’re wrong. In the US, pretty much anyone can sue for anything. I saw a lawsuit on Yahoo for $20k over barking dogs. That probably would have more merit to it than the case you seem to be building for Dnegs.

Don’t confuse the fact ppl won’t make your silly bet with being correct about anything.

Not 6 hours, do the math. I've got no further comment to make because I just set out why certain parts of the video are legally indefensible and the post got deleted. (probably because too much of the thread being taken up by the legality or otherwise of the video, so fair enough).

If anyone wants the bet and we get an Escrow that both of us are happy with I'll ship the £500. Gl all at the tables.

I should give credit to Shorty though since I take most chances there are to go after the man. Good on him for putting his money on the table. Good luck.

Don't see it

I deleted my post because i saw after the news is already readily out there. They have been discussing it over tweets.

It’s been a while since I’ve studied first amendment law but I can’t imagine any of Doug’s videos would constitute grounds for a defamation suit. The Supreme Court takes the first amendment very seriously. See Hustler V Falwell where the court, in a lopsided ruling, found that Flint’s advertisement in Hustler alleging that Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mom was constitutionally protected satire.

Yea you can sue anyone for anything, but I would be skeptical the case makes it past summary judgment. It would get quickly dismissed. The satire exception to defamation is pretty broad, look at all the **** South Park gets away with.

I’m not an expert on the topic but I would be very surprised if the video is actionable.

The First Amendment protects the rights of people to protest the funerals of dead soldiers and make horrific remarks towards the family members at the funeral, it protects the rights of the KKK to spew their nonsense, if it protects human garbage like that, it’s going to protect a measly parody video.

Not to mention Dnegs has to show damages. I seriously doubt Polk has hurt Daniel’s earning potential.

Watched like 20 mins of one of his streams, he was doing the "oh my gosh did I just offend somebody" sthick the entire time, maybe like 15 times in 20 mins?

Dude is super unlikeable, honestly I'm shocked if anyone doesn't think that guy is a ****

He's done it..

Daniel was my favorite player as I got into poker during the boom. Always seemed like a decent guy with a good head on his shoulders, definitely a little cocky but just enough to be ok. But these days, the guy just seems like a complete douche. His WSOP videos last year were unwatchable. 20 minutes of him ****ing around with his dog or showing off his wife before any poker content. He has become a real sketchy guy with a very unlikable personality and it saddens me.

I wonder if the biggest diss in the video is actually showing him how he folded 74 on a T876 board getting 7,5 to 1.

I guess he spilled out the genius assumption that villain might have a 9 here and was told what a "sick human" he was for this amazing read lol.

Okay, well I'm now pulling my bet offer regarding legal action, because the fundamentals have changed a lot. The sexually explicit scene at the end has been removed, which included ChoiceCentre's logo on it, plus Polk and Negreanu are becoming all buddy-buddy on Twitter regarding their HU4 (for <~5%) of their Rollz match.

The posting of this edited video, albeit initially in effect forced by YouTube's Ts & Cs, is an admission of sorts that the last part of the video was outrageous.

I don't wish to debate any legality issues any further ITT, because when I do (courtroom style) my posts get deleted by the mods as the posts are too lengthy.

Regarding their HU match, I don't care even one iota about it.

Gl all at the tables.

Wisdom*Genius = SageDonkey

You are not leaving 8-1 bet on the table, Ignorance*idiot=you? Wow, such bravery in light of the edits. And I was just about to escrow....

Was my thought too.....

Was that the reason you were given? If lengthy posts were an infraction, I would have been perma-banned a long, long time ago. SageDonkey and Alan C. Lawhon probably look at my posts and think, "Wow... ain't nobody got time for that."

Watching the video again, I never noticed before that a dog's squeal was added to the point when Negreanu stands up and kicks the air (0:36 mark),*implying that he kicked his dog in anger. In the real video, the sound isn't there, plus Negreanu's kicks are definitely more in jest (2:50 mark).

That would be the one place in the Srsly video where legal action could be warranted, as it's an instance where the falsity-purporting-as-fact element of defamation would apply. Not saying such action will happen, mind you, only that this does amend my previous assertion that there is zero case for it.

But you're right, the larger circumstances have changed, at least for now: Negreanu appears to want to settle this on the virtual felt. Did you get any actual takers on the bet?


Disagree with this. It's just a matter of compliance to YouTube. Srsly (or Doug) could completely disagree with the notion that it's "outrageous," but also recognize that the site's standards are set. So the only choice to have the video uploaded is to remove the one part that is most likely in violation of the content code. After all, it was the only part of the first version that was remotely sexual in nature.

Not surprising, you were wrong and overreacted to the whole thing since the beginning. Would have been the easiest money I would have ever made.

Lol, I looked to see if Tilteddonkey was banned because I thought this might be his reincarnation....correct on the ban hammer but the wrong donkey.

love how dn knows in detail how polk done in crypto based on absolutely nothing

LOL, wait, what?

Why are you even commenting on it if you don't understand something as simple as this? It was even explained a couple dozen posts previously:


I know how you love everything to be all about you, but perhaps it's something as simple as this:

But while we're on the topic of things being all about you - why do you insist on returning and doing the exact same **** again? Long argumentative posts going on and on about the same thing, and then...the thread becomes all about you. Over and over again. If that's what you're back for, then why don't you save us all a lot of time and just call it a day now before you inevitably get banned.

I should note, I have no "mod evidence" of who "Wisdom" (LOL) is. I'm just going by the obvious evidence that we can all see.

Miss that legend

daniel is a 6 year old baby he is a ****

Doug polk >>>>>>>>>>>Dnegs

Dneg lives up to the boomer stereotype

Yeah, the timeline seems off. He built up the fullcontact thing and had some 8 figure deals on the table when the UIGEA passed and made that site more or less worthless. Then he signed with stars and was making money but not FT money so when black friday happened he maybe felt justified scraping as much jam as he could out of that jar, but his skin wasn't thick enough to deal with the ramifications of his choices.