I see a lot of defenses that OP could have presented. What I don’t see is that he in actual fact presented them. The first thing I would have presented is that you had both already agreed to an arbiter originally and the arbiter has dismissed the case. That should have been a binding decision, period.

However, once you agree to go back to arbitration, all bets are off. And it sounds like you didn’t do a good job explaining your side of things OP. So all this speculation about what evidence was presented is a moot point, since the onus is on OP to present the evidence in his favor in a way that will appeal to the arbiters. That’s the whole point of arbitration.

Yeah this is obv a major discrepancy and idk why OP is saying 6k hands in this thread. Overall, not enough pieces of the whole story are in public view (either in this thread or the other) to make an assessment as a lay observer, imo. Screenshots of Krab and JWs comments are helpful but a totally incomplete record of the arb process.

This is all kerfuffled because it was a "challenge" so they think some rules of decorum should be followed. If this were just a headsup match, and no arb was agreed to, then at best the plaintiff would be suing the person who granted access to the database without his consent. The legal documents detailing allowed use of that hand database is the only thing that matters here, and it is fairly absurd for Paint to be giving back his winnings. Did he acquire a shady edge and potentially angle his opponent? Yes. Poker hands have been logged and studied in these situations for the entire existence of online poker though.

You can tarnish his reputation by saying him and Pinnock planned this, but I'd never be agreeing to give the money back unless I was looking to salvage my public reputation. This thread feels like it's seeking to do that. The loser of this challenge got got, but Paint let himself get got by entertaining the arbitration option. He didn't use illegal software, or exploit some cheating method. He just studied and had an inside edge on his opponent that his opponent was allegedly unaware of. Paint comes across as unethical, but it is crazy to give the money back here unless the goal is to seem like the angle was unintentional. For that reason, since he gave the $ back, I don't think he is unethical. He's buying his own innoncence back, and it seems fair enough. There's no legal precedent to force him to void the results of the challenge, and poker is rife with cheaters so idk, this seems resolved, even if yeah, he may have planned to hustle his opponent.

A 2-3 yo database with 6k HU hands was too much to overcome for a **** talking pseudo gto player.
Was there ever an attempt to quantify the edge gained through it? The wr was 20bb/100 ffs.
It wasn't a close match where a bunch of sidebets had to be paid becuase of a small 2bb/100 edge in paint's favor.
Paint paid the **** talking loser and team who he crushed for 20bb/100 ~100k and he is apologising?

God thank you these arbitrators are not making the law in my country. Would go to jail for lying about my dick size on tinder.

Arbitrators & commentators seems like a FTX situations to me.
They probably all meet in Vegas and **** each other.
Faced headwind and needed to save their own skin to still get that action next time they meet in Vegas instead of doing their job properly.
These mfs freerolled paint, this is what happened no matter how they twist the story.
Objectively paint crushed the **** talking pseudo gto playing fraud for 20bb/100 humano humano and in the end had to pay him & team ~100k because of a 2-3 yo database of 6k HU hands.

They even gaslighted paint into aplogising when clearly he is the one that got scammed by the fatty brain vegas crew.

Bully got bullied and collapsed.
How about a rematch, you get paint's database of many more than 6k HU hands and he gets a 20bb/100 edge you have to overcome, gl you mf.
Pretty sure paint would have no problem with that. He probably would even be nice to you although he definitely shouldn't be and give you not 2-3yo HU hands.

So you're saying if i have 1 million hands on you i cant put that **** in a solver nodelock it and come up with the perfect anti strat?

Perhaps the fact Paint lied from the start. Regardless of his reasons that just doesn't look good.

I must not have been keeping up with the latest software, now there's solvers that you can just feed 1 million hands and nodelock !?

Paint holy **** have I been ****ing furious and livid for you getting scammed for 100k+. Literally I just had a dream last night about myself getting scammed for 100k after being enraged for the whole day for you getting freeroll scammed like this by the overshit the turn ******s.

As someone not familiar with this dispute or the parties (I'm not a highstakes player) OP's own description in his OP post where he presumably is defending himself mostly looks like he lied and tried to coverup as much as possible.

Sure maybe the arb decision was bad, but your post doesnt make you look good or ethical.

no but you could deduce a players starting ranges and how balanced or unbalanced they are and find tendencies like they underbluff by 10% when the checkraise the river. You would just have to put the hands in pretty much any tracker and manually look up different spots then see how it compares to the solver

The arb decision is beyond terrible. He lied about something that's not even relevant. 6k hands from two years prior to the challenge is a mockery. Even if it were 600k hands.

Brandon had no way of proving anything, yet Paint agrees to disregard the initial (favourable for him) arb decision and give Brandon another crack at it. He then admits to the irrelevant lie which he obviously knew would be used against him.

Brandon knew Pinnock was coaching him and didn't care until he lost/was down 48k. He agreed to the original arbiter but then changed his mind when he didn't like his decision. That's the real scam.

Yep this. Why wouldn't the original arb decision stand? Just a joke.

You essentially summarised my rants in the thread. I’m glad someone else sees it like this and I’m not just some crazy guy with no horse in the race defending someone I think may subject to a greater con.

Going only by the information from this thread, and assuming it is correct, I think the punishment was too harsh. I think lying was a huge mistake and is the main reason the arb decision will sometimes turn very unfavourable for you, but even in the worst case, it should have only been about paying back the money lost in the matches and voiding the bets. Paying back even the sidebets is lunacy!

Because he lied to the original arb and he wasn't doing his job properly (or felt like he couldn't) so he stepped down. And new arbs were chosen.
Literally says it in the OP. How about don't lie to arbs if you want decisions to stand.

Plastic elephant only one nailing it in this thread tbh. Rest just scream hidden bias everywhere.


Edit: delete comment as unfair to arbs

Lmao hidden bias based on what. No one of us have heard of Brandon/Paint prior to this.

Most are prob just pissed because OP gets scammed and still has to receive public hit pieces by Brandon's popular friends

The only good guy loses money, while the two scums Pinnock and Brandon comes away richer. And lying obv doesn't justify this hard punishment

arb ruled way way too harshly, but important to respect the process and decision. (which seems to have happened)
i think it's kind of a tricky case since most judges won't understand how much benefit the "analysis" had on the actual challenge, and will have a thought process like -> this was dishonest - > guilty -> punish!
also it is a very time consuming case (to consider, hear/watch all the evidence etc) and tough to find very suitable/qualified people to voluntarily do this (or even for non high pay tbh).
naturally you will mostly get good-faith, but not ideal group


more importantly i guess buyer beware but holy moly anyone paying thomas a cent for coaching let alone the rates he seems to charge is nuts. great example of how it is very very rare (but not 0%) that paying someone to coach you at games they don't play/beat themselves is a terrible idea, esp for high prices.

if u can't make it fake it! lalala

I think if your coach answers a question surrounding poker theory with “look at the sim in your own time” you should end the call, proceed to PayPal and chargeback your funds and simply put in the description “sht reg”.

Lied about something not even relevant? He lied about the key portion of the case. Did you have access to the database of hands? "Nah man what database lol." When caught..."oh yeah that database but only a little bit of it and it didn't help."

In general the guilty will come clean when their backs are against the wall but will give up the bare minimum. So if someone says they only glanced at a DB its almost guaranteed they they did a lot more than glance. Its like when the some dude confesses to having sex with a chick but only after the cops can prove his semen was in her but he totally didnt grape her but he in fact did grape her. Not sure about op but in general people are always more guilty than what they admit to. At least thats one type of guilty person. You also have what i call the toddler defense. Which is to just lie your ass off regardless of how damning the evidence is

so OP beat brandon HU and lost 100k+ in the process of doing so, seems fair

Seems weird they don’t set aside 5%, winner pays, to nominally cover the arbs time (maybe they did, idk).
Seems reasonable price to pay for the oversight that both parties made not establishing rules for this “challenge” when there was a month prep time. Especially when Brandon had to have known his former coach would have access to a bunch of his HHs.

Yeah and even in this thread OP says 6k hands when in reality they had access to 210k, all but 6k were 6max but still extremely disingenuous