Gary_Neville loses this bet just for being the single most hated player in the Premier League. Even thinking about his stupid tash tilts the tits off me!

Solved

If breez chipdumped why would he loose another hundo on other tables?

If breeze dumped why would he do it in a showdown pot?

If Gary lost the QQ vs T7 hand would you still play devils lawyer so much?

In propbets you always have riscs......

thats why we have to settle this another way. New prop bet or money back

level?

Post less

Your angle-shooting, cocky, cheating, douchebagging turdlike existence is the only level in this thread. STFU. You lost. GG Gary.

probably mentioned but the thing about the 86o hand is not that he 3bet, thats standard. the funny thing is he barreled on that board vs unknown. that is really creepy.

The problem I still see is it's going to be impossible to determine what was done and if OP was aware of it, or even colluded to do it. So, what should be considered is did OP have a motivation to want to collude and was there anything else fishy that would suggest something funny going on?

1. OP was a losing player. He originally didn't want to be filmed. Setting up dual monitors that mirrored each other would allow a 2nd, better, poker player to play off camera so long as OP moves mouse. Communicating via a laptop which nobody could see would make bathroom or redbull breaks easier for 2nd poker player to stop playing.

2. The camera angle clearly showed what was behind the computer/desktop while making sure the laptop screen isn't visible and as little as OP as possible.

3. I don't know what was said previously but OP asked "did you guys want to see my laptop" and the camera/laptop was never adjusted.

It really did feel like things were purposely set up how they were to hide as much of what was really going on.

Are you accusing me? Sure as hell this sounds more of an accusation rather than a harmless statement of evidence.

Statements like this do not sound good, Gary. In fact, I was not too suspicious until you said this.

Since you were down $$ at the time of the chip dump, why would a bettor (who has staked money already) dump you more $$ in the hope that you win the bet but then avoid the payout situation anyway. It is quite obvious that even if you won there would arguments and you would likely be paid anyway. Therefore a bettor has to risk 200 relative to his betsize (not huge), help you win the bet then argue to get it voided. I would rather watch you lose yourself and if it looks as if it is definitely over I would try a token effort (if i was a prck) but admit I was beaten by you.

I agree with most. This seems shady (nothing confirmed) but you should get paid, no doubt.

disclaimer: I may be biased as I am a City fan.

If cheating, well played but fk off.
If not, well played and apologies.

True, I hadn't thought of that, there will be no incentive for bettors to dump me $$$, but I'm just hypothetically speaking, and I'm most definitely not accusing anyone.

Gary, I edited it to make things clearer..the size of any individual bet relative to the dump + the chance of not getting a ruling in their favour makes the chances of this extremely slim (you will admit the chance that you dumped is much greater)..having said that, I have no agenda and just say what I see..As I said, you should get paid because the people betting did not do enough to ensure it could proven as a fair contest and since there is no firm proof whatsoever you should be paid (even if it hurts your feelings that some people think you're guilty).

Can't believe Gary still hasn't gotten his money.

In 30,000 hands the kinds of suspicions that have been brought up would literally occur 100% of the time anybody attempts this.

Would be completely unfair to Gary to do anything but give him his money.

Weird thing to say after you win a prop bet.

.... no?

People should have paid more attention to my posts on page 1 !

But since they didn't, I'd think OP gets the money -- not like all these things weren't pointed out and they ignored the inherent risk of prop betting with a stranger and implicitly agreeing to trust OP. There isn't much room to argue.

Like I said, only a moron would chip dump in a way that it can be proved. Any subtle method of chip dumping is 100% undetectable in the sense that it can never be proved. With a couple k on the line, it's not very hard to ask a few friends to dump you a couple hundred dollars throughout the course of a couple hundred/thousand hands. OP can lose a few pots purposely for show, or just win a lot of nonshowdown pots where there is no evidence whatsoever.

If you agreed to bet, you pretty much agreed to trust him not to chip dump unless you think he's a moron and would chip dump in a way that you can prove. He should win this bet barring someone from Stars showing relations with his account to a few people who lost money to him throughout the day.

Yep, op should get his money.

30k hands in a day, thats just about the amount of hands a casual player plays in a month, seriously the 10 7 o and 86 3 bet hands were completely normal. PTR has me at 10 k hands and i have seen wayy stranger hands than that and have done wayy dumber ****. So say theres 10 hands that seems suspicious over 30k hands, big ****in deal, thats like what 0.0003333333 % something like that is gonna come up with such big sample of hands.

QQ is not 100% v T7os AIPF.

If this guy wanted to dump chips, he could have done it way more under the radar by 4-bet/folding 3 times. No one would have even noticed.

AIPF was higher variance and more likely to be noticed.

I'm not saying things don't look fishy or that everything is innocent, but if Gary IS cheating, they picked the most obviously, poorly thought out way to do so.

btw, having watched this bet, I'm going to do a similar one. Who wants to bet??

After catching up the last part of the thread i must say that i totally agree with Th3_S1aught3r on this one.

Zachvac had 30 hands like the QQ vs T7 one during his prop bet. He posted tons of hands where villains 5bet bluffed with hands like that or strange calls with k high on the river. No one accused him of dumping....

Few things:

1. Please quit saying microstakes grinders would generally play tight/nitty when shot-taking. That's not how it works, especially when they move up. Typically it's "**** I'm down a lot today, but it's only one buy-in at x stake, so I'll just go up there win a buy-in and be up". It's also perfectly reasonable that he'd snap sit out when he realized how much money he'd lost. I was normally playing mostly 200-600nl and decided to take a random 5knl shot after a semi-bad day. 2nd hand in HU I decide to 3-bet/5-bet shove A4o for 5k KK snaps me off I lose and I snap sit out and leave. I still had a few more buy-ins left in my account but it wasn't about that it was **** I just lost 5k I need to stop this before it gets any worse. If $200 is a lot to this guy I can certainly see him sitting out on all tables after he loses the T7o vs. QQ hand for stacks. Now the one thing that is a bit shady was people saying he was playing super weak passive but then against OP he decides to get aggro, but please stop repeating that normally people who shot-take play nitty. This wasn't a shot. It was either a dump or a tilt-spew session to try to get even at way above where he had any business playing.

2. The guy in the T7o vs. QQ hand you said was on 2 of Gary's tables. Was he 2-tabling or was he on more? If both of his tables both had Gary on them how many tables typically run at that time for 200nl 6max? What are the odds that guy would get Gary on both of the tables he decides to join randomly?

3. I'm the one who mentioned pointing the camera directly at the laptop was dumb because you couldn't see who was playing. Then people say he had camera pointed only at him? The idea of a webcam is to have it pointed at both laptop and person to show that he is the one playing. Anything else is extremely shady. Also if this was pointed out to him it's not a hard thing to simply adjust the webcam while it's on. I thought it was funny he didn't do that immediately before the bet started when I mentioned it and if this was pointed out during the bet and nothing was going on you'd think he could simply reach over and adjust it.

4. People keep saying "if he wanted to cheat, he'd do x, therefore he's not cheating". Ever think that maybe he didn't do x because it'd be obvious? Maybe they did it in a showdown pot because people would say "well obviously he's not dumb enough to collude that way, therefore he's not colluding"? Or finally that it wasn't thought through that maybe it's just one of his buddies that was on aim at the time and he was like quick I need a buy-in or so if I win I'll ship you 1k and didn't think it through at all. Note I am NOT accusing him of doing it and I'm really not sure what I think about it, I'm just saying the arguments that if he were colluding, he would have been smarter about it are invalid.

5. His responses in this thread just seem weird too. What person after winning such a tough (not tough as in just being able to do it but tough mentally and super draining) bet would do anything but continue to deny collusion and allow judges to do anything to determine the truth. Now as far as I know he's done the 2nd part but even entertaining the idea of doing it again is ludicrous if he's innocent, especially when (if he's honest) he doesn't even think he's a favorite to win, or else he hustled the most insane odds ever. If I'd done this legit and was innocent of dumping I would be super pissed at people trying to freeroll me and essentially make me do it twice in a row which even if I thought I would do it over 25% of the time thus bet would be +ev that would make the bet -ev needing to basically do it twice in a row.


So anyway no concrete proof but when added together everything does start to look shady. This is part of why I would never bet against someone I didn't at least somewhat know/trust because ultimately in the end there is a certain degree of trust involved. I hope the judges can figure out one way or another but I think I see Gary getting the money. Nothing can really be proven and there is the chance that all this stuff is just a coincidence. Making him redo it would be extremely weak though. Either you just let a guy freeroll after being caught cheating (and telling him exactly how you detected him so he can do it better the next time) or else you let the bettors freeroll him by making him do it twice in a row. Make a decision one way or the other imo and if there's doubt Gary wins, because ultimately the burden of proof is on the side needing to prove collusion.

The more suspicious part was the timing I think. And for people saying he could have just done it earlier in the bet keep in mind like look at the DoN bet where he was found to have people chip-dumping. He started out thinking somehow he could do it legit then just at the end when he needed it he had people dumping. I'm sure the OP thought in the beginning he could legit do the bet. IF (that's an if, again not accusing right now) he was dumping the thought process was ok I can do this I can do this **** I've got like 1k hands left like 1.5 buy-ins to make up they're folding every time I get a monster can't win NSD pots sigh I'll ask if I can get a dump. It clearly wasn't a set-up from the beginning where he had friends all dumping him money every few thousand hands or so.

Someone got caught dumping in another prop bet??? can you post the link?? im really wanna read the thread now lol... Thanks

It wasn't so much dumping as it was having people intentionally losing in DoN's (so if you have 2 guys that bust out intentionally even if it's not to the guy doing the prop that means you only have to finish top 5 of 8 people trying lol. And these guys were only joining his DoN's and he was only 6-tabling the $5's when about a million of those run). It was from over a year ago I think I'll find it and post link.

edit: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...nt-ask-438936/

Also why the **** isn't that guy banned from 2p2?

this is lol