Wow if he loses the bet like that, would be so gross.

some people really need to get a life. wow. oooooooooooh u r a complete fail in life

i hope common sense prevails over this rubbish. good to point out, so pathetic to make a complaint about. Im so tilted by this idiot. free money on NL 50 HU tables!

."..dont care about posting updates right now. Too consumed with a few things. "

This was posted on September 6th. This post expresses that I am consumed with a few things. which in a sense, is a small and vague update. I was consumed with studying my game. That is an update and shows progress, even though it is not detailed.

That post also is an update because I express frustration in the way i worded it, which is an update to my challenge (update=me being short and frustrated, which= me struggling mentally).

Even though I worded it "i don't care about posting updates" doesnt mean me saying that makes it less of an update. I may have said I dont want to post an update, but that does not in fact mean that I was actually posting an update at that very second in an unusual style.

" and is only to award the bet to a given party in cases of extreme misconduct and a 3-0 without any doubt ruling."

If that update is not considered an update for some reason. I point to rule 15 as quoted above.

If ballcup loses this bet over something as small as that, it would be a tremendous beat. I hope the judges aren't as anal as oooooooohh. Gl ballcup!

Section 8 states:
I am going to attempt a good faith effort to update at least every 24 hours, but this condition will not be considered breached until Ballcup plays one hand when 72 or more hours have gone by without an update to either the forum, twitter, or the blog.


- Ballcup has to give an update every 72 hours after he played at least one hand.
- Ballcup gave an update on September 6th on his blog.
- The update was short but nowhere in the contract is specified what the update needs to contain.
- So far Ballcup gave an update every 72 hours --> No breach of contract

Don't take it too personally ballcup, he knows your gonna win the prop bet and he's trying to squeeze a cheap win in

GLGL

+1

the update was on the fact that he was too consumed to write anything extensive. but he still posted to let us know. that's pretty much what an update is, whether it's as elaborate as you'd like it to be or not

[x] Part of Ballcup hopes he loses the bet on this technicality.

Jesus, do the people who make propbets even read their own rules? Judges?

Ok, a couple things.

First, to the people who were hating over the last few posts, as one of the only advocates against ballcup's side I'm obviously going to plead my case. All I've said is that I'd like the judges to take a look at the situation. Obviously, if the judges rule against me I will accept it, but I have a very legitimate case that clearly deserves serious consideration. Ballcup broke one of the clauses in his contract, and it's up to the judges to determine whether or not breaching one of the clauses (albeit one of the more minor ones) warrants losing the bet.

There are a couple reasons why I think it does. First, Ballcup was the original writer of the contract and is clearly very aware of everything it contains. Before this challenge began, Ballcup took a lot of time to plan the rules/prepare a strategy and felt this clause was worthy of a spot in the contract. If Ballcup didn't think of this as an important part of the contract, he certainly could have omitted it (I didn't contest any of his original terms, so this clause was 100% volunteered by Ballcup), but it's ridiculous for him to put a clause into a carefully written contract and expect that there will be no repercussions for breaching it simply because it's more annoying to update the blog than he thought it would be when he began.

That's what this bet is supposed to be about, after all- a grind so ridiculous that it warrants 3:1 odds. Ballcup came up with a proposition that seemed incredibly difficult to accomplish, knowing that it would take complete dedication and a ton of sacrifices for the rest of the year. This bet is an endurance test, and everything from playing 2 million hands to maintaining the webcam and keeping an updated blog takes a toll. Ballcup, you even say it yourself in the 9th clause: "In a sense you are betting that I can not attempt something like this for all of these reasons (besides death hopefully)."


Let's be honest, man, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. No unbiased person would call what you posted on september 6th an "update" in the sense it was described in the contract. For example, you mention that one reason for requiring an updated blog is that "the motivation for the wagerers may be entertainment," but the September 6th post (cause it was, after all, just a post) was neither entertaining nor informative- it was merely a dismissal of your responsibility 'til a later time when you might be more enthused. Another reason the September 6th is not an update as defined by the contract is that it does not pertain "as to his progress" as you suggested updates would in clause 8. I don't feel the need to get into this further, as any impartial observer would find the above quote pretty absurd.


It would be great if one of the judges could contact me via PM so I know that they know what's up. Also, I would like to be included if you're having any serious talk with them.

you do know that in a contract each close can protect the person who made the contract but can also hurt them.. and i think one clause hurted OP but your so smart that your beyond those facts right?? but at least ohhhhhh wanted to discuss this in PM with OP and get a rulling if he felt was needed how more classy could it been done?????

I'm on ballcups side about this issue. I hate douchebags like ohhhhhhhh...

O snap he works for the DMV? No wonder he has sand in his vagina!

op do you regret adding all those extra non sense rule!!!

At no point did anybody define what an update must contain so him posting anything in his blog must count as one imo

lol

...dont care about posting in this thread right now. Too consumed with a few things.

lol @ oooooooh
u are one sad loser

tbh, all the people saying that ooooooh is a total douche;
I think he is right in a way, Iam pretty sure the bet cant be lost over this issue since it isnt anything serious enough to forfeit him on but ... I think at least someone should give him a straight answer (1 of the judges). Its sort of a grey area and its for the best for all parties to have clearity on this and therefore its important for the judges to react to this **** in time. The angleshooting on hodge's propbet in the start was rather bad for his confidence and non-tilting capability....... The sooner someone says whats gonna happend the sooner its over and the less trashtalk/thread pollution there is gonna be on this ...

*edit*
like this awsome comment that made it worth while .... you'd say that someone who has been able to practice over 7K times in posting in threads should be rather good at it ....
*/edit*

furthermore @ jmill;
wtf is up with this **** ? Looks like he is a good player who is just asking for some clarifications, why paste his (monsterrrrr) graph ?

I can understand people wouldn't want to see the bet end this way, and are entitled to an opinion on whether the rule has been broken, but making out that ooooooooooh is a "douchebag" or "loser" for bringing this up is ridiculous. All he's doing is querying whether a rule has been broken, and considering he's betting against then that's fair enough.

On whether the rule has been broken, the key line for me would be the title "Update coming". To me this might imply that the post itself is not an update. There are also relevant points (for both sides) in posts above.

Whatever the outcome of this query I would like rule 15 to be clarified. The way you have used the extreme misconduct line as a defence here makes it seem like several rules can be circumvented by saying "oh it's not a major breach". I understand why this is included, but imo the rules need to be strictly followed to protect the bettors in a situation like this. If the judges rule that the post was an update then that's fine, but we don't want a situation where judges think there is a breach but because there is a slight doubt then they can't rule against. I hope that makes sense.


Disclosure: I am betting against.

so ballcup DID update but douchbag oooooooooooooh did't like what he said?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH GTFO!

[x] fail at trying to be an internet forum lawyer.

I haven't read the rules but unless it states the updates must contain information regarding the status of his challenge, then ooooooooooh has no standing and in fact is technically wrong.

I don't understand the hate on ooooooooohhhh he has money riding on this and there seems to be some vague breach of the rules. There's no harm in having the judges look at it.

Title: Update Coming
."..dont care about posting updates right now. Too consumed with a few things. "

How anyone could argue this is a progress update on the status of this prop is absurd. Argue if you want that it is outside of "the spirit of the bet" to forfeit it on this level of breach if you want, but the very post itself acknowledges that it isn't an update.

I mean, would it be acceptable if he just scripted something to post "Update coming soon" every day at midnight on his blog? I can't possibly see how that satisfies the clause of the contract, which clearly outlines ALL of the conditions that must be maintained for the bet to be evaluated.

I get all of the "omg that's so douchey" junk from onlookers who want to continue following the thread. I'd like it to continue as well, because it's interesting and entertaining.

But, this is a real prop for real money with real conditions that must be met. One of them has not been met. Ballcup hung himself by being so specific in the verbiage of the contract, and sadly I believe should be disqualified.

Edit: Also, why the hell even have a contract if you're just going to ignore all of the minor details aside from the hands/winrate requirements? If you can just say, well, the webcam is a minor part of the bet, so just forget that it wasn't on, why even mention it at all?

Disclaimer: I have no skin in this game.

LOLLL stop your a ****** and need to gtfo of the internet.... what the people and ohhh would like to know and why... did OP break the rule according to the judge chosen??? if so then the bet is off and op lose then ohhhh and the others who did bet against him get their cash.... cool huh... so ohhh has a stake in this and only wants to make sure hes not being cheated......