Every time Doug has called someone out, it's because of a scam. There's virtually zero recourse available to the poker community over these types of malicious, fraudulent or simply careless actions, often involving relatively huge sums of money.

Good on him for attempting to do something about it.

There's definitely some truth in what you are saying especially about empathy. However, I disagree that this in no way will help to alleviate one's irrational behavior.

Doing SOMETHING is always better than doing nothing.

Besides:

Sue Charlton: People go to a psychiatrist to talk about their problems. She just needed to unload them. You know, bring them out in the open.

Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee: Hasn't she got any mates?

Sue Charlton: You're right. I guess we could all use more mates. I suppose you don't have any shrinks at Walkabout Creek.

Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee: No back there if you got a problem you tell Wally. And he tells everyone in town, brings it out in the open, no more problem.

I think Ben and Doug should get together and hug it out. I'm only half joking.

Cliffs:

-- WCG had a man-crush on his idol Ben86
-- Ben86 stiffed WCG on coaching
-- WCG's face gives Ben86 flashbacks to childhood trauma
-- Dumb stuff said by drunk people
-- WCG believes people who talk poker together should never play each other
-- WCG butt-hurt that Ben86 sits him HU
-- Ben86 has PLO dream machine software written by Alix Martin
-- Breakup done via text

-- Ben86 goes horseriding in the gayest possible way and threatens a guy who has it on film cause he doesn't want his poker buddies to make fun of him.



I advice anyone who plays at a table with Ben86 to loudly ask the table "whether anyone has seen that gay af video with Ben86 riding a horse" and preferably filming his reaction

It's always amazing to me how socially inept so many of these guys are. If you have the ability study/play poker and win at the highest stakes it shouldn't be that difficult to see a therapist or something. Even read some books on social interaction or something. I remember even Jungleman hired a social coach or something a while back.

An inventor named Alix Martin from Paris, France has his name on two patents according to the USPTO website. (One is a co-patent with a Michael Smith of LA. Both patents are assigned to Thompson Consumer Electronics, based in Indianapolis).

(Do an Advanced Search for "martin-alix" to find it)

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...in-alix&d=PTXT

1. Method and device for film-mode detection and field elimination
2. Method and device for film-mode detection (AM-only patent)

"A method for determining which of pairs of successive video fields have interlace scan characteristics includes generating accumulated differences FD of pixels in successive lines of respective fields of successive pairs of fields and generating accumulated differences FR of pixels in successive lines of interlaced said pairs of fields. The accumulated differences FD and FR are compared and pairs of said fields are classified as interlaced if the ratio of accumulated differences FR/FD is greater than a predetermined threshold value......etc." [Abstract from #2]

Some of us have little clue what the above means. I assume it's something about improving the video quality of a screen image (i.e. for scanning/capture?)

Hello 2+2. I have been pondering making this post for quite a while. I have previously decided against it for a couple of reasons. One being that Ben has a stellar reputation and lots of friends in poker, while I am fairly unknown to most. Another being that I really enjoy my life the way it is, and have a strong desire to avoid conflicts that I perceive as being likely to have a negative impact on my overall happiness.

With that said, the recent revelations in this thread was shown to me by a friend who also suggested it was maybe in the community's best interest if I shared my experience with Ben Tollerene(and Isaac Haxton), with which I agree.

During the middle of 2015, I added Ben on skype and we had some very short and sporadic correspondance. Only thing of any possible significance for the upcoming situation was basically when we made a bet against each other on a Starcraft-tournament.

One day Ben approached me and said he wanted to crossbook on Sauce vs Trueteller who were playing a match later that day. I agreed on a 50% crossbook of the stakes played. Trueteller ended up winning a little over 80k.

This is where things starts to get messy. It was obvious to both that Ben had bet on Sauce, but while Ben assumed I was betting against him, I thought that me and him were splitting a crossbook against Trueteller. So basically he thought he owed me 40k. And I thought we both owed Trueteller 40k each.

As soon as he realized my interpretation, he suggested the bet was a wash since "he would not have paid me had Sauce won". I think this is a ridiculous way of putting it. Had Sauce won, he would have expected me to pay him the money obviously. I am not a fortune teller, but my best guess is that he would have been pretty damn upset had I refused him payment of the 40k. If a bet is a wash when the two parties have different interpretations, you can always freeroll any bet by claiming you thought the bet was something different when you lose.

I suggested it was obvious we needed to consult an arbitrator who could decide whether my misinterpretation of his intentions were reasonable, or if the chat made it obvious enough that he asked for a crossbook against, not with me.

He argued a little, but pretty soon agreed on us consulting an arbitrator. He immediately suggested we ask Ike. I was aware that the two of them were at least a little friendly, but seeing as he(someone I have always respected and looked up to) suggested Ike(someone I have always respected and looked up to), I assumed that things were in order, and I gave my consent without thinking much more of it.

This is where things getting really messed up. A short while later I get a message from Ben where he copypasted a few lines from a private conversation with Ike where he said that Ben did not have to pay me anything. We are talking about a bet the size of a regular annual salary(and yes, me making this bet without being more certain of the details is moronic and quite possibly the biggest mistake of my life), and he went and had a private arbitrational conversation about it without including me.

It then became clear that they(Ike and Ben) had spoken about the issue privately the day prior to him being suggested and picked as an arbitrator too. Meaning that Ben may(but by no means certainly) have picked up an idea as to how Ike would rule. And not only that, Ben had also erroneusly suggested to Ike that it was a question of whether I pay him or he pays me. Not the actual reality of either he pays me, or the bet is a wash(since I can obviously not send money to Trueteller who did not even participate in the bet). This type of misinformation obviously hurts my chances of getting a positive ruling by quite a lot.

For what should be appearant reasons, I now get worried that bias might have influenced Ike's decision. I am by no means a regular side bettor/crossbooker, so I decide to copy/paste the convo of us agreeing on the bet to a few intelligent high-stakes regulars. Without mentioning results of the match to be sure I avoid any sort of bias myself. The almost unanimous verdict is that it was obvious Ben asked me to crossbook against him. One guy even took the oppurtunity for some friendly needling, mocking my interpretation of Ben, who I did not even know, who has all the money in the world and lots of friends in the high stakes community, wanting ME to crossbook WITH him. I will not name any of the people I consulted since I do not want to drag them into any of this, so unlike the rest, I have no proof available for this paragraph which means that you can disregard it if you please.

I ask Ben to at least send me the entire conversation he had with Ike. He ignores the request. I then contact Ike and ask him to get to see the entire conversation. He ignores the request but suggests that "maybe we should get someone else to arbitrate". He does not apologize, not lift a finger to help me, and decides to not give me any input when I ask him what he thinks of my take on the situation. The arbitrator of the 40k-bet.

I voice my frustrations to Ben, and he gets upset. He multiple times suggests that he could have just taken the 40k from me. Not only is this untrue because I would never have sent it to him since he was not the person I thought I croosbooked against. And if I send, say, Trueteller the money, he would most likely contact me asking what is up at which point it would become clear that Ben had lied to me. And, obviously, not scamming someone should not grant you any betting privileges.

He keeps saying Ike is the most objective person he has ever met and fails to see any issues really.

Some time passes by. I try my best to get a second, open, unbiased arbitration. He repeatedly mentions how we both made mistakes and how we should use this as a learning experience. I quote a wellknown highstakes regular saying I would have had to pay up had Sauce won, and he now agrees on a second ruling.

Things drag out alot. For instance I suggest Sauce as a possible candidate, he asks me to give him the day to think about it. 12 days later I have to bring it up again because he never came back to me.

Sauce mentions the awkwardness of him being the judge in a bet where one party is a close friend of his. He also mentions he might have financial interest in the bet, which if true would make it pretty absurd that Ben thought he was a plausible candidate. It might have not been though, so lets hope and assume it wasn't.

Sauce suggests a few possible other candidates to me. Two of these were Jeans89 and Cole South(I have met, and know neither of them), both very smart, successful poker players. I suggest those to Ben, but he swiftly declines and instead suggest another HS-player who is a friend of his. At this point I have lost many nights of sleep, and worries there might not be a trial at all if I decline, so I say I am fine with it. I am pretty desperate to just have this thing be over at this point.

The new ruling(which was fairly conducted) is that I was responsible for 2/3 of the mistake because I believed that I was asked by Ben to crossbook with him, despite this being so unlikely given the circumstances(does this not mean I just win the bet?), so I only get 1/3 of 20k(yes the bet was for 40k, he made the 20k-figure up for whatever reason). I am not mentioning this persons name since, unlike Ben and Ike, I believe he did nothing unethical. He was put in a horrendeous position where he had to make a decision as to how much money he would alleviate from his friend. I am not sure if there is anyone who can remain completely unbiased in that position.

The entire process, which should have been doable in an hour or two, took 6 weeks to complete. I had to do all the work and keep pushing the issue time after another.

This still keeps me up the occasional night, and I decided here to voice how I was treated by Ben and Ike. I do believe that if this was the real(not poker)world, consequences in a court could be quite harsh for this type of behaviour. But in the poker world, we have no court. And I obviously wish for noone else to have this sort of experience.

Here is the entire conversation that the crossbook was based upon, make of this what you will:

[2015-12-06 21:06:31] Ben: I'm trying to get down a small xbook on sauce vs trueteller hu 8 game today
[2015-12-06 21:06:34] Ben: lmk if you want to have a gamble
[2015-12-06 21:09:30] BERRI SWEET: Yea, I'd be in for a reasonable amount, how much are we talking?
[2015-12-06 21:09:35] Ben: 50%
[2015-12-06 21:09:40] Ben: 25% is ok too
[2015-12-06 21:09:43] Ben: answer quick thye about to go
[2015-12-06 21:10:28] BERRI SWEET: In for 50/100
[2015-12-06 21:10:33] BERRI SWEET: Is that 50%?
[2015-12-06 21:10:45] Ben: its 4/8 mix and 100/200 big bet
[2015-12-06 21:10:50] Ben: so if youre talking big bet yes its 50%
[2015-12-06 21:10:54] BERRI SWEET: yea in for 50%
[2015-12-06 21:10:57] Ben: ok booked
[2015-12-06 21:11:01] BERRI SWEET: gogo, thx
[2015-12-06 21:26:10] Ben: theyre doing winner pays rake today btw
[2015-12-06 21:27:08] BERRI SWEET: So if I lose I dont pay 50% of the rake, but if I win I pay 100% of it?
[2015-12-06 21:27:18] Ben: yeah
[2015-12-06 21:27:23] BERRI SWEET: Cool

I also want to point out that at no point have I been asking Ben for the 40k or suggested that I won the bet and he lost. All I ever wanted and asked for was a fair arbitration process.

For the record, I finally wanted to mention that I think it is unlikely that Ben or Ike has done anything with malicious intent. But delusion does not make you devoid of responsibility.

HD Dream Machine

It amazes me also.

Another thing that amazes me is how these guys lend huge sums of money to other poker players and routinely get scammed. I remember Jungleman saying he was going to be extremely cautious with this in the future, ever since getting scammed in the durrrr challenge.

So it seems Ben has a habit of making deals and trying to find loopholes as a justification to not pay up his part of the deal.

RIP

I think the greatest trick the high stakes community ever pulled was convincing the world they are smart

RE: BERRI SWEET

I'm just a midstakes peon but this is shocking and ridiculous.

I assumed Doug was offering to take the action himself instead in which case I disagree with your post, but if not I suppose you have a point.

That convo ben/berri seems pretty obv to me that ben took sauce side.
Idk how you can see that in any other way.

problem with this analogy is the popular kids always end up being the drooling donkeys and the kids like ben are geeks who end up rich because theyre fortunate enough to not be ******ed

This all just seems ridiculous to me.

In all honesty I could smash Doug or Ben hu over a large sample. But since I'm broke they won't play me.

the sad truth is you prob could if you had access to the simulator results they had/have and you run as well or better than they do

Ye there is no dispute about that, the dispute arose from Berri thinking he was sharing action with ben against true, while ben thought he was betting against berri.

A couple of years ago I thought about creating a poker arbitration service to resolve disputes among players as to staking and such. However, I let the idea go because I felt that the demand might not be there, especially as online poker was going to get more regulated than ever.

Now, I see this thread and the stream of stories about this, that or another instance where two players/stakers/backers/bettors have a disagreement, often over serious amounts of money.

I've changed my mind and think its time for "pokerdisputes.com" to offer binding arbitration services to willing parties.

A "Poker Disputes" service should charge about the same fees/costs as any other commercial arbitration, and would have rules and procedures suitable for making fair and impartial rulings. I'm not sure there is a continual need or sufficient volume to make this a business venture, but the idea deserves review. (Any comments on the idea of neutral professional arbitration of poker disputes should be sent via pm.) Ive just read and heard enough about such disputes to think the market should be able to offer a more efficient mechanism than this thread to resolve and collect awards between the parties.

been grinding this thread for days for this meme ty sur your work is greatly appreciate wpwp

I'm just quoting this post but in every post, you more and more prove you're so ****ing delusional. Get a grip.

DELETE THIS NOW OR I WILL BREAK YOUR COMPUTER.

DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW BIG I AM ONLINE?

Doug seems like a loyal guy. A trait most people don't have


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk