I would be very surprised if a court ruled in timexs favor in a breach of contract dispute here.

Biggest thing that matters is what the contract said when it was agreed upon and the money changed hands , not a lawyer tho

Kind of funny reading the specific T&C Mike quotes. Basically the right to cancel any bet that is "materially different from those available in the general market at the time the bet was made". This isn't a NFL game where the line is offered across thousands of books. Didn't think there was anywhere else where this was publicly available.

I do wonder what Mike/PokerShares reaction would have been if it wasn't a poker player making the bet and was just some random old joe who really wasn't angling. For those saying "TC was trying to grim a friend" then fine, that follows the narrative that PokerShares is more akin to your neighborhood bookie then a legitimate book. They even emailed the customer to clarify the bet after they realized how misleading it was and offered a 24 hour window to cancel lol. Like maybe just take the L for the few hundred in EV and call it a business decision rather then fighting tooth and nail to never come across as the sucker.

Like most disputes, there's two sides/arguments to make, but I have to say my faith is a little restored reading these replies versus the Twitter ones.

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.

If indeed you have bet more props than anyone in the world, surely you have had books cancel wagers where they posted the wrong terms. I’ve had it happen at least 5 or 10 times and I’m quite sure I haven’t bet as many props as at least a thousand other people.

If I went on PokerShares and bet on what TC did, I would expect it to be honoured. It's not my fault you didn't clarify the handicap.

Never. Only on inactive players. Maybe my experiences are an outlier

They eat their mistakes and move on.

I dont look for this stuff either. If its on what im betting then I bet it.

Doesnt matter whether he knew about the handicap. It should not effect the bet whether hes lying or not.

Timex should have just taken the action ie peanuts, fixed the line to be more specific and then lifetime ban Tchan

Good points on both sides but shady is what shady does

The challenge is basically a freeroll for Landon because he is so young. The risk reward is to good to pass up at -9bb/100. He is only risking maybe 50k at most of his own money and a few months time in solver jail to potentially win a half mil plus

There is no handicap for the book to clarify. The 9 BB is an integral part of the rules of the game which is being bet on. As is number of hands.

A more analogous case would be those two-leg soccer games where you count the deficit from the 1st game as well as the score from the 2nd game and someone bets on who will go through and assumes it's just the second game.

Imagine a celebrity showdown at the next Olympics between the fastest man in the world and the fastest woman in the world. It's a 100m dash. Men are about 1s faster than women in the 100m dash, so the event is that they both run the 100m but then subtract 1s from the woman's time to determine the winner.

Bookie lists event as: "Fastest person on earth challenge. Winner:
Christian Coleman 1.90
Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce 1.90"

Do you expect to get to pile bets in on Coleman and auto-win the bet since they didn't mention the -1s stipulation on the betting page?

This seems like a reasonable compromise in that it leaves both parties unhappy.

I agree with you. The bet should cancel no matter what, because you are betting on who will win the challenge and the terms of the challenge specify 9bb.

It matters what TC knew because if he knew that the challenge was +9bb and he still posted everything he did, then that's lame or worse.

Yes, I'm sure he could be better than some Ukrainian 10NL full-ring grinder who's never played heads-up before.

No it's not. You can put anything in a contract, doesn't mean it's enforceable. The biggest thing that matters about a contract is the spirit of the agreement that is made, not necessarily what is or isn't written down.

Also the TOC supersedes any betting contract here. Again, people are debating/arguing a non issue.

Going forward, it will probably be in Pokershares/Timex's best interest financially to have someone else handling the PR stuff

Vegas must be an exception, because i promise you, and they're few people in the world with better experience in this then me, that basically no big bookie on the planet (apparently outside vegas) is honouring that bet. It's just not how they work

Dont bet in Vegas but elsewhere bookies basically always void their bets for lines that are clear mistakes. Some do have promos where they pay out bets for different stuff (like some very unlucky loss / pay out a league champ bet before its 100% etc). But not for bets on lines that are clearly not as meant. Cant see a jury that would vote in favor of the bettor. Chat logs not great for either, but yea if they were friendly and he expected the bettor to know whats up then that would explain how timex was going at it.

Split the baby (and the bicycle) in half!

This. What a gadget for now swallowing the few hundred in EV. Or just ignore TC then if your so sure your in the right. Before people jump in to say he was defending his business, keep in mind TC offered arbitration. Despite this being clear and obvious to Mike he decided instead that this would simply take up to much of his time and instead spent a couple days blasting off on twitter.

And again, this isn't the same as a +120 bet being posted as +1200. I agree that a material error that is clear and obvious is cancellable but the fact PokerShares sent out a clarification email demonstrates how misleading they believed their own bet was. Given the low volume they do in relation to a book like Pinnacle it just screams incompetence.

derail:

To be clear you found u2.5 passers at +170 - at multiple shops???? The lines in Reno were Over 2.5 at +150 to +165

I'd be interested how you handicapped this one anyway- Kelce/Watkins/punter had all thrown passes for KC during the year. Its the Super Bowl. Its the time of the Philly special. There's Henne/Gabbert equity if one of the guys get smashed.

Anyway, this one always hurts to lose and now my kid has to go to community college.

lol, feed and cloth a kid for 18 years, possibly even drive them to sports and deal with loser friends, then you are expected to pay for college too?

Well, you admitted in your text messages that you could have worded the prop less ambiguously.

You admitted an error and seem mad that someone took advantage.

You should make a business decision not an emotional one.

And that has zero to do with who is right or wrong.

Have won two contract disputes in court. Have never heard anyone discuss the spirit of the agreement. I’m not sure what you think would be unenforceable here- is part of the contract illegal? Is there a lack of mental ability to consent?

Winning contract disputes doesn't give any sort of authority on this subject. Just like my dealings in employment law don't give me any authority on this subject (even if we both have overlap).

But there are plenty of examples of contracts that, despite being written and signed by both parties, are not enforceable. EG, I ask one of my staff to sign a contract with an exclusion clause that they cannot work for another dental company within 40 km's of my practice and they sign it. It's almost certainly unenforceable despite them agreeing to it, since the ability to earn a living takes precedent over any exclusion obligation, and no magistrate or court would find in my favour.

Getting back on point, the reason the bet Chan placed here isn't enforceable is due to Pokershares clear TOC that Mike posted earlier. Everything else is moot and that is why Mike isn't wasting any time on this.