Quote:
Originally Posted by AV0995
I don't tnink you need to prove that a 2 year old database has given an unfair advantage too much
Just more that they had access to database and used it. Similar to that if someone was caught using RTA and was still losing, you wouldn't say 'need to prove how rta is giving unfair advantage', just the matter of using RTA would be DQ worthy.
Feel like the point of arbitration here is 'would the match happened if brown knew paint would be using unethically sourced hands with all hole cards known' and the likely answer is no (or would it, people here claiming he already knew? Not sure about that though).
That should be potentially match being voided and that's why people feel like it arb result was too harsh having to pay everything back (and why it's silly he paid side bet) but can see after being constantly misled in arbitration and lied to repeatedly why they came up with harsher punishment.
I don't know if having an old database and RTA are comparable. I'd agree with you somewhat if the HHs in that database were current, something from Brandon's most recent match(es), same format and maybe same stakes. I just don't see how he could've been advantaged by getting a glimpse into how Brandon played two years ago, presumably in different formats, at different stakes against a different set of opponents.
And I just find it hard to believe Brandon didn't know who Paint hired as coach, at the very least he would've had some basic information.
To me it looks very much like Brandon knew, at the very least, about the possibility of Paint having access to some old HH's but realised they were pretty much useless and thought he'd crush him anyway. When that didn't happen he wanted arbitration. Then when the decision went against him he felt the arbiter was in a conflict of interest (although the arbiter was well known to him/a friend). A pretty good freeroll IMO.
I'm not well versed in how terms for these HU matches are set. To me it seems logical that if I had a database of my HH's in the possession of xy, I'd stipulate xy can't coach my opponent. To my knowledge that didn't happen here.
Btw, I didn't get the impression Paint continually lied to and misled the arbiter(s).