blonde poker forum

In Vegas, myself and 3 others made a bet with Rob Yong.

The bet was that he could not host a heads up tournament with 64 players/runners at DTD before the end of the year with a minimum buy in of 1k.

I take a runner/player to be an individual. So if Brian entered, got ko'd and re-entered, this would still be one runner as he doesn't become 2 runners when entering twice.

How do other people view this?

Neither me or Rob would angle each other - just wanted to see how others interpret the bet and what's fair.

If it's too dubious, then I'm sure the bet wiill be called off.

Obviously would need to be 64 different players as in any headsup comp- so round of last 64 would need to be played. Cant be a rebuy

Seems a bit ridic to have a re-entry HU tournament. Technically 2 people could enter with 32 bullets each and just keep playing.

Rob's talking about a re-entry, so say for e.g. play 2 or 3 rounds on day 1a and same again on 1b with people who busted playing again.


why would the winner of the first match enter again?

Seems to me like the total number of entries (incuding re-entries) would be the most appropriate.

If it wasn´t properly defined at the time then my suggestion would be to define it now along with anything else that could be considered ambiguous and if either party is unhappy with the terms as now defined they have the right to withdraw.

id say 64 different runners for him to win the bet- multiple reentries wouldnt count- only because its clear when the bet was placed no-one would have considered this and changing the parameters is obv wrong

if there was two day1's then its fine imo, but 1 day 1 seems stupid.

Who is Brian?

This ainec

Bet is fundamentally based on the level of interest in such an event. I wouldn't see the size of the prizepool generated by less than 64 interested parties as greatly relevant when betting on how much appeal a comp has.

since you've been with your bird your posts have gotten worse and worse

i remember when they nearly all had me in stitches

sorry mate.

np

prick

xxx

:)

Can't remember the exact conversation but my understanding at the time was that it was unique entries

yeh, agreed keefus. you'd better not enter!

No matter if it's unique entries or re entries I still dont like your side of the bet.
Seems to me that most of the people who will play this are betting against Rob so may spite not play to win their bet without risking the buy in.
Would fully expect Rob to run 10 seats gtd satellites for the 6 nights before the comp tho ;)

going to enter then unregister with 1 minute to go - muhahahaha

Live heads up tournaments are not particularly popular in the UK - hence why you never see them run really. Getting 64 runners for a 1k tournament in this format will be very difficult as it will usually have to be around a major tournament festival and even then people will most likely leave after they bust the main rather than stay for a heads up tournament.

I'm fully aware that Rob is a hard man to beat in a bet and will run several satellites - i just cant see this tournament being attractive to many people. Few fish will buy in because they'll be treading into shark infested waters.

Actually like Greekys side in general, but would never want to bet against DTD and if I were actually betting against Rob, I would keep the wager low so he didn't give a shit (so under £100,000).

Last year the World Heads Up Championship, which used to be a very prestigious event, got 28 runners, the year before it got 49. The GUKPT heads up events got 16 and 8 respectively. These were all piggy backing on a bigger festival and a similar buy-in.

If Rob was incredibly passionate about making it happen, it will, but if this is just DTD trying something new and testing the waters, I like Amatay's butlers side.

how on earth can reentry work in a hu? I've been thinking about this for a while and my brain hurts

e.g.64 people enter so play the last 64. 32 get through to last 32, 32 go out. only one of the 32 that's knocked out reenters, he has no-one to play so presumably gets a bye.

there's now 33 people left so we're effectively back at the same round we started at and 2 people have to play another game to get through to the last 32 that they'd already qualified for

or maybe 3 reenter, 2 now play each other, one gets a bye and we're left with 34 runners so 4 people now have to play off to get 2 places in the last 32 that they'd already qualified for. it's just crazy

and how do we know what round is being played on 1a if there's 2 day ones?

just can't see how it can work, you need to close entry at the start time and do the draw, reentries are ridic

We booked a bet for a 64 runner £1k buyin HU tournament to be held at dtd by the end of 2011, which Rob thought he could fill with the contacts from his phone address book iirc. HU tourneys don't have re-entry or whatnot, and the whole idea was that he'd have 64 players down all of which would attend the event on a set day. Hopefully he'll honour it/gamblers code etc. Time is ticking =)

LF

I'll lay Robs side at 3-1 if you wanna bet Jason - bearing in mind the bet expires on december 31st

How much did you book tho? It is important...

IIrc Luke had 2k and Dan had 1k, when Rob was writing it in his phone he said 'I'll put you two down for 3k'. I don't know why he grouped Dan and Luke as though they were a couple lol - maybe because he doesn't know Luke as well as he knows Dan so it was a diplomatic/polite way of ensuring that Dan was responsible for Luke's 2k of action.

TBH, I like your side even with re-entries, bearing in mind it's November tomorrow.

Dont' like their chances of getting paiiiiid though

wash your mouth out with soap young man. owner still has the right to refuse entry ;)..... i always thought dan and luke were the best of mates despite luke being a cod head. pretty sure its not happening but will mention it next weekend to give rob a fighting chance

rob emailed me today to say bet is off and that he'd explain when he sees me

:S

In 8 months?

Does that mean that if i dont get the thread to reach 2k for Movember our bet can be called off? or do i still have to wear the outfit that makes me look like Celtic in the December deepstack?

that's the line girgy should've used

whats he coming to thailand for... he gets his pick of skirt in this country :)

I'm not going to insult Robs intelligence by acknowledging that he thought for a moment when the bet was made that re-entries would count. The terms were very clear at the time.

Quoting from Alex's Diary:


I see no reason for the bet not to stand, but am yet to hear Robs reason. Can you forward me the reply Cos if Rob is willing to discuss it via email?

Cheers

I'm not entering Greeky as I cant afford to re-enter

Wow, I think it's REALLY lame if he tries to get out of this without paying.

It sounds like a very clear bet; any bet or prop in poker is done on trust, and this one is obviously alot more official and well-organised than many others where people pay out without hesitation.

im going to be all 64 of the runners, I'll win, do £10k on rake and have 6 shiny new flags for the hendon mob  and would be great for morale.

#everybodywins (except Keith, Dan, Luke, Keys, Cos)

I've emailed Rob, explained I'm travelling and thus unlikely to see him for a while and to explain why he considers the bet off. At the moment I don't consider it off but will wait for Rob's response.

I'm sure Rob must have a good reason as 5k is peanuts to him and I know he wouldn't ever welch on a bet (look at everyone he gives 2/1 playing hu). I feel bad questioning Rob, particularly after a nice night out he took us on and paid for in Vegas but feel I'm not doing anything wrong.

Is there any explanation from Rob yet Cos?

One of the things that the poker world does very well is the way that there is a shared trust and understanding that when a bet is made, it is made.

It takes very little for a bet to be made, and I'm sure we could all give examples of this bets made quickly and by just use of words. Basically, the word "booked" from both sides is enough to seal it.

There is far more than that here, to make the bet a lock; details into a phone, and an email from Rob, that he wouldn't send if there was any doubt as to whether the bet was on or not.

The bet was never that IF the tournament went ahead, it would get 64 runners. The bet was that the tournament would go ahead AND it would get 64 runners. Therefore, the possible circumstance of the tournament not going ahead should have nothing to do with whether the bet is on or not.

As far as I'm concerned, the bet should be on.

There are a few circumstances which are slightly confusing, i.e Rob asking a mutual friend to clarify with us (only recently I should add and months after the bet was booked) if the bet was on and to put up our money. Nothing was asked of me, Dan or Luke in terms of this and it should be on as this responsibilty lies with Rob, not the person he asked or us.

It was my intention to not mention anything about the bet until as near to the time as possible or even on Jan 1st as relative 1k to me is more than 5k to Rob and I thought a small wager for him might not be taken seriously or even forgotten about and I wouldn't want to prompt someone I've bet against to beat me.

The're was a long chain of emails back and forth but this is one of Rob's emails that's most relevant by way of his explanation:


Cos, the bet is off. I don't want to get into a debate about this.

It was a 5k bet, I scheduled the heads up into the monte carlo is december at 64 runners and a 64k gte, therefore it was mathematically impossible for you guys to win any money, as I would gte the remaing seats in satelittes, which your 5k would do towards any overlays, therfore it was impossible for you guys to make 1p out of this bet.

Before the monte carlo literature was published I asked ******* to contact you all on 3 seperate occasions and in the end I have him a deadline before we published the monte carlo brochure - only keith put his money up, none of you put your money up or even got back to me.

That's pretty much it, with respect, 5k is a very small wager for me, and spread accross 6 people, even smallers for the people betting against me.

Its probabaly costing me more taking the time to explain this to you and I don't mean to be arrogant, but none of you except keith got back to me.


In the above email I deleted out the person's name as they've said to both Rob and myself weeks ago that they didn't want to get involved in this due to the awkward position it puts them in.

Point 1 is wrong imo as I think more than 5k added would be necessary to fill a 1k HU tournament, particularly when the only time it could feasibly run is alongside the monte carlo, which itself carries a big guarantee and relies on lots of satellite winners. My perception of people's desire to play heads up live tournament obviously differs hugely to Rob's and I think that there are not many who would pony up 1k+.

The second point is none of our fault but Robs - I was never contacted to pony up any money.

The third point is completely irrelevant and a bit of an insult. The money is irrelevant here really. A bet is a bet.

The last point I won't even get started on but I feel a bit insulted by.

I've accepted the bet is off, not because I think it should be, but because I can't be bothered to argue about this and its near enough impossible for me to sort out from Thailand. Rob has been very good to me every time I've been in DTD, buying me drinks etc. He also spent a few grand on that night out he took us on in Vegas so I think Rob doesn't see he's doing anything wrong by calling the bet off here, even though in my opinion he very much is.

It's upsetting but a lesson learned.

Should also just add that the part of not being able to make anything from the bet at a 64k Gtee is also untrue. Obv I'm out of the country which I wasn't expecting at the time of making the bet but if there was an overlay, myself, Dan, Luke and Keith could enter and a 1k entry would be worth more..

Rob would just have put on a couple of 10 seat guaranteed sats the week before to make up the shortfall probably, just to make sure he didn't lose.

Which means that Rob does a good £15k in overlay when he could just pay out on this bet and be done with it. Paying up is CLEARLY the most +EV pay for Rob, but he just won't do it because his ego doesn't permit him to admit that he made a terrible bet and has lost.

Instead he's decided to reel off some BS reasons as to why the bet should be off and threatened bans from the club for all involved if we persist.

Yeah well, just to make clear I'm not saying whether he should pay or not as that's got now't do do with me. Just making the point that he wouldn't actually lose the bet if you pressured him into following through with it.

Has that actually happened? That's a pretty low blow if it's true.

Still makes for a much softer field in doing that which adds to the benefit for us of playing it if lost.

We were aware of your point before we made the bet, we aren't completely senseless, and were still willing to bet.

Your point may be for why Rob should be a favourite to win, it's NOTHING to do with whether the bet should stand.

No that hasn't happened.

I think Dan worded it poorly to say if we fought our case, made a big song and dance about it, we would have to consider that we may be given DTD bans. That's my line of thinking anyway.

To eliminate the chance of any future poor wording or anyone being mislead i'll just quote the email

as someone who loves playing poker and loves playing at DTD I find all of this a bit baffling.

Rob Yong was a God to me - not someone I'd sit and have dinner with, but someone I could look at and admire for the way he did things.
I watched the fight to get the club established, signed up for the online room as soon as it opened, visit the club as often as circumstances allow.
I'm a simple, old, recreational player who just loves playing poker and loves playing at DTD the most. I attribute that enjoyment to Rob's understanding of what is right. I've supported the Grands Prix and spread the word to all I encounter.

Now this?

It just seems wrong.

As recently as September the DTD website carried a blog entry that included reference to having to organise a tourney to win this bet. What's changed? What aren't we being told?

Nothing that has affected the terms of the bet has changed, Rob just decided to welch on it instead of admitting defeat

I too have been a supporter of DTD for a very long time, have attended every big festival that they've put, been playing deepstacks since 2009 and know a lot of the staff past and present pretty well.

As to the reasons for why Rob has chosen this course of action? I'm as lost as you are.

Think this is pretty much a private matter.
Turning it over in public isn't of benefit to anyone  involved.

I think "Owner of DTD doesn't pay gambling debts" is very much a matter of public (or at least the section of the public that reads this board) interest.

If I made a private bet, and  someone didn't honour the bet, I wouldn't gamble with them again.
I certainly wouldn't call them out on a public forum.

+10000000

Well I would, and I think it you've tried to resolve it privately and failed, I think it's an entirely reasonable course of action. You've got to warn other people about grimmers.

Another reason why I think it's important.



I've highlighted this bit because I think it shows that Rob Yong and DTD are seen as synonymous. If own shares in Coca Cola and Coca Cola does something bad, I don't expect people to blame me directly- I don't make the decisions. But with DTD, every time their is an overlay, it's "Rob's having to reach into his pockets" etc. Knocks on Rob's reputation as a gambler reflects badly on the whole organization.

Hi Guys

Interesting thread.

With every event we run i plan the schedule months in advance and have a set marketing plan, with the Monte Carlo in December Rob asked me to include a 64 runner heads up which i intended to spread over the first 3 days of the main event with an initial Day 1 the day before, re entry would have been available if there were byes in the first round ( i saw this done in the Aviation a few years ago and it worked ) First 32 players play day 1a , the 16 that get knocked out can re enter into day 1b if there are spare seats, as the Monte Carlo progresses those not playing each day can play there second round matches and so on on a flexible basis.

Marketing release a pdf to all our previous £1000 + players 8 weeks in advance, i needed to know from Rob that we were still to include the heads up, he told me he wanted confirmation who was taking what as part of the £5000 bet and wanted the money up front. Only Keith could confirm he had a £1000 and was happy to pay it, Dan wrote on Alex thread that " there was a bit missing somehwere " so obviously this needed verifying , Rob spoke to a player who had been in Vegas on the night the bet was discussed as he thought he may have been the missing link but he said he wasn't so he asked him to speak to the others for confirmation and organising the money. As Cos points out £5000 isn't a lot to Rob but £1000 is a lot to him so the last thing Rob wants to be doing is chasing after the money when the bet has been won. After repeatedly asking Rob for confirmation for the PDF he told me he hadn't had replies from all concerned so i pulled the event from the schedule.

As Woodsey pointed out this is an easy bet for Rob to win, we get 300 players for the Monte Carlo of which i satellite approx 150, i would expect at least 20 direct buy ins and i would do 24 x 1 seat guaranteed satellites online and 2 x 10 seats guaranteed in the club, this is what i had in the PDF, there was never any doubt in my mind that Rob would win the bet but i can understand why he would want the cash up front.

A couple more points, saying he would ban everyone was obviously tongue in cheek and i assume Cos has Rob's permission to reproduce private emails on this thread as personally if he hasn't i think he his bang out of order and that is something i would ban him for but i'll see what Rob wants to do.

So confident am i that my satellite schedule would have worked i would like to prove it, if you guys or anyone wants to bet £5000 depsoited on account at the club by December 31st i will give you 2 - 1 that i can run a 64 runner event at our February Monte Carlo. All bet sizes and who have what action will be on this thread with confirmation they have paid.

Cheers

ACES

Simon,

I responded to most of these points in an email to Rob but I do not accept that non-communication is a legit reason for cancellation. Having a third party handle the correspondence was a mistake and involves another party unnecessarily. We're all online poker players, the easiest people in the world to get hold of.

Given the tone of the email exchange I do not believe that the threat to ban was tongue in cheek.

I would like to keep my £1k as booked, but on the original terms which did not include re-entries. Happy to leave it on deposit at the club

By this logic you would argue that it is wrong to out people that scam on money transfers, because it is a 'private transaction'? I don't really see a difference.

This wager stopped being private when Rob posted the following on his latest blog entry

This all seems a bit strange.

If I was asked about the bet I would have never claimed it wasn't on. It is not my fault that I wasn't contacted by Rob/anyone at DTD. I'm not hard to contact, pretty sure the DTD emails I get send and fb messages about cash games at the club are sent to some of my details. Even if they somehow went missing within DTD's data, half the regs at DTD could have provided my details.

That night was in June or July...there have been many months we could have been contacted in.


With all due respect Simon, I still like my side of the bet. Money means nothing to me, whether I have lots or little (and I've had both a few times!) so if Rob wanted to cut off his nose to spite his face by doing 15k in added sat money to win a 5k bet, that's absolutely fine with me.

You or anyone else thinking he's a favourite or a lock to win, is not a justifiable reason for cancelling the bet.



I was not aware of that email between Rob and Dan, but it does not look tongue in cheek to me.



I don't have that permission - it was an oversight on my part to have asked for it - my apologies for that. I've always been very respectful with Rob and despite thinking it was 'bang out of order' as you put it that the bet has been cancelled I personally have agreed to let it go. People were asking as to why and I felt that email explained Rob's side succinctly.

I don't intend for a massive flame war to Rob or DTD. If I'm 100% honest I had thought that there was a chance the thread would be followed by Rob and he might realise he was in the wrong over this.

I've been a staunch supporter of DTD in the past but if you guys choose to ban me, so be it. I won't kick up a fuss.

What's the point of this post?

Do you have something useful to say?

Why does the money have to be put on deposit at the club? Is this normal practice when a bet is made?

No mention of posting any money was made at the time of the bet.

Edit: Would have arranged for it to be posted had it of been.

Cause they are degens, or in your case, the kebab shops of north london mighta taken you for everything by then

I'm a degen, but wouldn't ever welch on a bet though I'd be happy to post money if that was a requisite of the bet.

Glenn do you know Luke, Keith and Dan?

Sorry cos, no intent to offend. Failed humour attempt.

I don't know them except Keith & Dan across tables at times. Seemed like nice quiet chaps and excellent players - thats my sum knowledge before outing them as degens

haha k mate - took it as a dig, which I didn't mind as I am a deeeegen but if it wasnt a joke I thought it may be unfair on some of the others (but not all :P).

If bets are made and escrows need to be arranged then it should really be specified in the original agreement- i got grimmed on here for not escrowing with that Trade-King bloke. Seems no logical reason to use the 3rd party to convey this message?

As for cancelling bets- u cant cancel a bet unless both sides agree, if this means Rob has to throw a 64 runner comp and guarantee it at 64k meaning the others lose, then so be it- unless they agree to the cancellation then the bet surely stands

QFT!

Glad someone is getting to the real crux of the issue rather than points like 'you're drawing dead anyway' which really aren't relevant.

Of course it still stands but the event isn't running so it should either be paid now or paid when the bet officially expires on Jan 1st but since Rob has called the bet off from his side he obviously doesn't intend to pay.

Hopefully Rob lets us know through one channel or another that that the bet will be honoured and we can delete this thread and its over. I'd even be happy to offer the same action for another attempt in February if Rob is determined that he can pull it off.

I agree completely with this.

(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/1/5/129071610543323817.jpg)

Although lots of bets should be excrowed such as escrow bets, I think the state the English poker scene is in atm (very good) there is no need for some of the bigges online and forum regs to need to escrow. This was a problem at first as Rob didn't trust Luke (as he didnt know him fair enough) so iirc Dan vouched for him right?

Agree, now don't you owe me for a prop?

si senor.

still think frankie will be back by saturday. if he isn't will pa.


#believe
#dontletthemwin
#bringfrankieback

it's none of my business really but, imo....

if there is a £1,000 HU tourney during monte carlo and there are 64 players, then Rob wins this bet and £5,000.

If there ISNT, then he loses and pays the money?

Regardless of what it's gtd at or plays or where people are, surely its this simple?

No worries, fella. glgl

#frankiedeadinaditchbytheweekend

No

If you were confident your idea was going to work you should have run the event in spite of any bet. I don't know why the advance payment in some fun bet would dictate whether the management team run a successful event within your business. Considering the owner asked you to run it, you had the marketing ready, and you were confident your ideas would work then strange to cancel imo. I don't think it's good business to cut potentially popular events at your poker club because you can't contact some people on Blonde forum. Not to mention dissapointing lots of customers who were deffo gonna play and now can't, possibly hundreds of them.

+1 lol

I think you should stop moaning about girgy too.  All he needed to do was eat a lot less and he'd have won that bet easily.  I am sure he could have produced a viable plan for eating a lot less too. 

Perfectly reasonable for girgy to cancel in the circumstances.

 

Exactly

Plus Girgy had lost your number. If he wasn't sure he could contact you to get paid, why would he swerve the drive-through?

Hello,

This thread is a touch disappointing. Whatever has been written here, my integrity is being questioned by 3 poker players and a few other people on this thread. Without going over the same points, here are a few facts;

1. At the time of writing, I am owed £265,000 by poker players, most of this sum is made up of people owing me £1000 or below - ALL of whom claimed at the time that they could pay be back. This is admittedly my fault for either lending the money in the first place, or not chasing it up hard enough. However, this year, I have made a conscious effort to stop this sum growing, not just because of the money, but also because I don't want to jeopardise friendships by people feeling uncomfortable owing me money (ie. avoiding me). I now only operate a "cash on the table approach" and a non lending policy even when I play heads-up, the money has to there, including mine

2. £5k was the amount I said was the MINIMUM I would take this bet on for, like Dan admits, there was some of the £5k wager "missing" and he "thought" it was James Keys, but I asked James and he said it wasn't him, this was a £5k prop bet with a group of poker players that myself and Simon took out for meal in Vegas, with them "sharing" the action against me, so I don't expect to have to chase 5 different people up, I expect the £5k to be "on the table" and on 3 occasions, the players were contacted with only Cos replying that he did not want to take the bet if we allowed re-entry.

3. 2 Days after the deadline for the Monte Carlo marketing brochure had passed, which was the third and last deadline which I had given the players to come up with the £5k and find their "missing" backer, Cos and Dan were emailing me asking why the bet was now off, from silence to constant emailing me.  

4. Simon is actually wrong about me replying that if Dan sent one more email that they would all be banned, I did mean it, when I received the initial emails I was actually at the wake after my Grandmas funeral and Cos actually asked me to arrange a call with him to discuss the bet, so I may have overreacted because of where I was at the time, Cos and Dan were not to know where I was and I apologise for my tone.

5. Copying and pasting my private emails onto a public forum without even asking me is questionable tactics, compare this to my record of honouring GTE's and also paying out every bet that I have every made thus far in my life - immediately, I don't really see that how any level headed person is actually going to believe I would try and wriggle out of a £5k bet, what possible reason could I have to do this, its beyond rational thought, the only reason a sain person would say or write  this, is to fan the flames and try and tarnish my reputation, not because they actually believe it to be true.

Thats pretty much all I have to say on the matter,

Rob

Rob,

I think the crux of the matter is that we don't agree on these points:

1) Escrow / Money On Table

The bet was made over dinner between friends in Vegas and no escrow was mentioned. I think it would be fair to say that everyone rightly assumed that everyone else was good for the money and you were very keen to book the bet with no mention of an escrow or deposit. The first I heard of you wanting to have the money at DTD was in your email on November 4th.

2) Missing Money / Communication

You posted on Alex's Diary on September 10th confirming the amounts (post is quoted on page 3 of this thread) so this hasn't sprung up out of nowhere. Where exactly the final £1k of the bet was coming from was I admit a little confused but referring to my first point, you were in no danger of getting scammed for any of the £5k from our side and given the setting of the bet I think that much was pretty clear at the time sp I don't accept that cancelling for fear of non-payment it a valid reason to cancel the bet.


In light of this you still tried to use James as a go-between to pass on messages about the bet. As I've said previously I think this is wholly unfair on James and that he was right to stay out of it. I also reject any notion that I/we were tough to contact. You have all of our contact details at the club, you have us all on facebook, the list goes on and on.


Our thoughts are the same which is why we were all a bit taken aback by this turn of events, but when we raise our concerns and threats of being barred are what comes back the other way what else are we supposed to think?

I still don't believe that you're going to try and wriggle out of it, so when the dust settles and the deadline expires this bet like all of your others will be honoured and we can draw a line under this.

My condolences for the loss of your Grandmother

Dan 

From a completely neutral standpoint, and I'm probably going to regret writing, but here are my unsolicited observations fwiw, I'm sure no-one really wants me to arbitrate and/or sit in judgement but:

1)  Communication.  One area currently under dispute that should be solvable is the "3 attempts to contact with only Cos replying."  If that was 3 emails sent to each looking to clarify either the terms of the bet (including re-entry and/or escrow requirement and for avoidance of doubt, just who has what share of the £5k) and only Cos replied, (indicating he would be off the bet if it was re-entry) then I would find in favour of Rob and cancel  the bet.  The emails could have been sent by Rob or his appointed agent*, but not by asking someone to ask someone who doesn't want to know.  If "3 attempts" meant nudging James Keys 3 times who refused to get involved, then I would find in favour of the poker players.

* £5k might not be enough for Rob to want to chase up personally, but he could ask someone in his employ to do it.

2) Ethics.  Posting personal email isn't the best way to get a friendly solution and really shouldn't be done.  Either things have already broken down irretrievably at this point, or if not, posting the email should clinch it.  Likewise, always treat every email you write as "potentially appearing on the front page of The Times tomorrow" and you won't go wrong.  As for the terms of the bet, I think Rob satelliting in 63 players or even giving away entires in other promotions for example is totally reasonable and I'm sure the poker players were factoring in such possibilities when striking the bet.  Having previously paid out gtee's out of pocket rather than putting a few players in himself in the past shows Rob's honour and integrity is beyond any doubt. The re-entry situation is muddy, but had it been me striking a bet for ~ £1k and the re-entry discussion came up in plenty of time before the event needed to be announced, my thought process would have been: "it's still a fair bet, but we didn't hammer out definitions/conditions for re-entry at the time.  Given "at the time" was a night enjoying Rob's hospitality that is probably not far out from the EV of the bet, I'm more than happy to agree to cancel the bet, no harm done.

3) Escrow.  This should always be negotiated at the time the bet is struck if either party requires an escrow.  I don't for a second think anyone would ask Rob to escrow, no-one is questioning that he isn't "good for it."   As for Rob requiring the players to escrow, well this gets tied in to point 1 ^^.  If he asked several times for players to escrow and they didn't, this is further weight on the bet being off.  If however, Rob decided last-minute (4th Nov) to require an escrow as he suddenly noticed he is £265k out to bad debtors, then that is different and is not a valid reason to cancel imo.  Without knowing anything about the players' personal circumstance, I'd readily believe that they were in the top tier of players not requiring an escrow to be in place.  As for the £265k, well that is entirely Rob's private business, but I have no idea how you get to that point where most of it is <£1k at a time.  You have to be duped/nipped about 200 times and then decide that enough is enough on the very bet with Cos & co. £265k may still be peanuts, I have no idea. But again, I'm sure someone trusted in his business empire won't be adding more value to the balance sheet this year than they would if they stopped what they were doing and recovered a good part of that bad debt instead.

4) What happens next?  Well if I was Rob, i might just throw a portion of £64k at the wall and have a Christmas HU tourny and lock up the £5k prop just because I can.  If I was the players, I'd look into email history etc and see if any emails had been received and not replied to (in other words, did I contribute to the confusion.)  I'd also think about the circumstances of the bet (I'm guessing the night out wasn't cheap) and the fact that there was enough genuine doubt on Rob's side to not even attempt the event.  I'd factor in the fact that Rob is 0% on an angle. I'd put that all together and act with good grace and agree to cancel the bet (guess it is too late for that)

I suspect that neither will happen and there will be a fair amount of animosity en route to an ugly stalemate, which would be a real shame.

@Simon Galloway, not once did Rob try to make contact with me to confirm the bet, even though I have multiple members of the DTD staff and Rob himself at one point as fb friends iirc. Contact could have easily been made.

An escrow was never mentioned, the bet dialogue went something along the line of Rob confirming he could get 64 players to the club on the same day for a £1k buyin HU tournament before the end of '11 (even jokingly claiming he could fill that with just the contacts off his blackberry). I thought the bet was pretty well defined and would be honoured by those involved, all of whom are known faces within UK poker.

@Rob

I do not see the relevance of posting how much you've loaned people or whatever, and find it strange that you'd want that to be public knowledge in light of your reaction to Cos posting your email; which I'm glad was posted seems I did not receive such a message/it affects me directly. Likewise, how you always honour tournament guarantees etc within your business I find to be irrelevant also. Maybe your emotional state meant that you weren't fit to respond to the email at the time; but you only apologised for the tone, is the ban 'threat' heartfelt?!

As I said in my email to you though, I've always enjoyed playing at DTD, my horses play at the club on an almost weekly basis, and I've always thought you are a straight-up guy who has done a lot to help UK poker. Until you can acknowledge that the bet was as simple as detailed above and that there is no excuse as to why it could be called off, neither my stable or I will be playing at the club though.

Like Dan, I hope and believe you will honour the bet, which I still consider to be active.

I received none of these  "3 attempts to contact with only Cos replying" and neither did Luke. Keith sees Rob every week so he probably did and I'm sure Cos can let us know if he had any emails. Even so, it doesn't matter anyway because the terms were clearly defined when the bet was made.

The notion that because this bet was made at a dinner that Rob paid for should give him any extra leverage in this bet is ridiculous. Not that it matters but I wasn't expecting a free meal, it was just a meet up with friends from the club that were in Vegas for the series.

Escrow has already been cleared up, first mention of it was on November 4th, nothing mentioned on or around the time of the bet.

Sigh what a mess. As previously mentioned about 100 times I decided probably slightly too late that this was a dispute I really needed to stay out of and not get involved. Coincidentally I decided to give up posting on blonde after the 1000 posts milestone a week or so ago. However I feel my silence on this thread has damaged the reputation of both parties, especially Rob (although if there hadn't been a public thread about it and the issue had been dealt with in private that wouldn't have been a problem).

So I am posting now to clarify a few things but will still try to refrain from making any judgements/recommendations in favour of either side. I'm not trying to spin things either way here, just shed some light on certain events since some uninvolved outsiders are confused as to how this could happen and are now judging Rob/Dan+Luke+Cos based on incomplete information.

1. I never contacted Dan or Luke despite Rob asking me to. This is why Dan and Luke feel like this came out of the blue while Rob says he tried to contact them multiple times. This is obviously totally my fault and has precipitated the whole situation and made everybody look bad (although I maintain that nobody would look anything if this had been dealt with in private). What happened was:

During a cash game that Rob joined quite late one night, the subject of this bet came up, I think because Simon came over to ask about the flyers or whatever, and Rob then turned to the players in the game and said something along the lines of "ok who did I bet with?" and it really wasn't as clear as Dan has been making out in these posts. Rob accused me of having action, I accused mitch, nobody could remember how much Luke/Dan had (in Rob's phone it didn't say "Dan+Luke £3k", it said "Dan Morgan £1k+£1k+£1k", so it was assumed at the time that there must have been a 3rd person with £1k action, nobody could remember who it was and everyone was denying it was them). So Rob said (again roughly from memory) "Look I'm not gonna run this tournament and then come to collect on the bet and have everyone hold their hands up saying 'it wasn't me'", which is what was happening at the time. So Rob turned to me and asked me to chase up Cos, Dan and Luke and find out who the mystery extra £1k belonged to.

At the same time, Simon had asked Rob to clarify that it was going to be reentry. Keith, the only bettor present at the time, said something like "hold on, what's that about?", Rob said "there was nothing in the bet that said I couldn't do reentries. Either I can do reentries or the bet is off". Keith said he wasn't too sure about it but he would be ok with it if the others were, so Rob turned to me again and asked me to tell the others that either reentries were allowed or the bet was off.

So, sometime in the following week, I spoke to Cos on skype, got him to clarify that he had £1k of action and asked if he knew who had the rest (he couldn't say for sure). Then I told him about Rob's terms and that there were to be reentries allowed and Cos said "No way, tell Rob x, y and z" and it was at this point that I realised I really didn't want to be caught in the middle of this. However, since Cos had said in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to include reentries I didn't see the point of chasing Dan and Luke separately. I then didn't see Rob for a week or so after this which adds to the problem because now Simon's deadline for the marketing brochure was very close. I told Rob that Cos had said "no reentries" and Rob said "well that's it then the bet is off". And that is where my involvement ends.

Much appreciated James, cleared a few things up already. Will respond later this evening.

Likewise James, thanks for clearing this up.


This is what my maiin gripe is about - you can't just change the terms of the bet and call it off when the other side doesn't accept the change in terms. Everyone that was at that table when the bet was made (which is Myself, Rob, James, Luke, Cos, Mitch, Keith and Paul Grummit as far as I can remember) can attest that re-entries were at no point mentioned and neither was an escrow, which is why the bet should stand.

The communication thing is not a non-issue in my opinion because the heart of the matter is that Rob tried to change the terms and call it off when the change was not accepted. Even if there was no requested change in terms and the lone reason for cancellation was lack of communication from our side - that is still on Rob because he cant just expect an unrelated third party to send the messages back and forth and claim no liability when messages don't get through. I see no reason why myself, Cos, Keith or Luke should be penalised for this.

I've no idea how the fact Rob paid for the night out has anything whatsoever to do with what the outcome of the bet should be. I also don't see why people keep going on about Rob easily winning the bet by running gte sats after the obvious was stated that losing 15k from gte's is worse than losing a 5k bet ?

Clearly there's been some miscommunication here and the terms of the bet weren't made clear enough as Rob can say it was never said that it couldn't be a re-entry as much as Dan, Cos etc can say they expected it not to be.

Great - what was the clear definition of re-entries being 'allowed' or 'not allowed' when the bet was made?

Ray, I have 2 levels of prop bet.

Level 1 is where I like and trust you and the money is not enough to be of a remote issue.  If we bet on an outcome for a football match to be played next week, and midweek you came back to me unsure about some aspect of the bet, I'd either get it agreed with you or if there was some kind of misunderstanding, just agree to cancel the bet.

Level 2 is when I end up betting with someone that doesn't meet 'level 1' criteria.  Here, particularly where the sums involved are significant to either party, I am far more likely to insist on an escrow, agree on minute detail and also agree on a ref to provide the ACAS stuff.


So it felt more likely to be a level 1 type of trade here, a friendly bet over dinner where the money wasn't going to hurt anyone present ~ just a chance for people to back their differences of opinion.  I am not for a second saying that if someone buys me lunch, they are let off all future bets.  Just saying that if the terms were questioned subsequently (but still in plenty of time for the tourny to be easily staged) it wouldn't have hurt anyone to call the bet off as a "misunderstanding of entry rules"

As further posts come to light, maybe the players will soften their view of who is right and who is wrong, or maybe Rob will.  Or maybe both will dig their heels in and then that's that.

I'm pretty sure that at this point in July there had not been a re-entry tournament at DTD and nobody present had ever known or heard of a heads up re-entry tournament. Common sense should prevail here in my opinion.

there is a 1k 6 max (hi roller) in the schedule for next weekends blackbelt live that is at Dtd and i cant see getting that many runners and certainly wont be a comp with much value.

this whole situation just looks bad on all parties concerned (or not even concerned in James's case).  Rob has done so much good for poker (but looks like a welcher) and the lads on the other side of the bet are some of the nicest guys you could meet (but they come across as babies who have spat their dummies). seems that its got blown out of all proportion over £5 bag for Rob or a bag a piece for the syndicate and whilst everyone knows Robs got till these lads aint short of a bob or two either.

NO ONE looks good here and maybe a public forum is the wrong place to air your laundry but i am probably the last person who can say that.

IMO Rob should say fuck it and run a heads up comp anyway. i would try support him by playing the sats but other than that the best i can do for the syndicate is pay the £5k out of my Full Tilt account :)

Herbie for mod.

@smashed

A communication breakdown is poor form but isn't unexplainable. What has really disappointed me in all of this is Rob's explanations and excuses/twisting of what was a bet with very simple parameters and then bringing irrelevant factors about his character into this when he could have just emailed me and arranged a chat or something. Instead he sent a ban threat/ultimatum whatever to someone else but myself, when it was also directed at me. I don't think I've been unreasonable at all or have 'spat my dummy out'.

LF

Despite being a cod head Luke :),you know I have got a lot of time/respect for you and if in your shoes may even be feeling the same as you do. I just don't see anyone coming out of the situation smelling of roses and hand on heart if Rob flicked you all your money would you not feel worse about the whole situation. 

You are up against the man who has dragged poker into the 21st century and caused the establishment to sit up take notice and up their games. To say that you and your horses  are gonna take their bat n balls home is just compounding the situation. Get together  with the other syndicate members and decide your next course of action very carefully.

Put yourself in Robs place because something must be drastically wrong if he is allowing this dirty situation to carry on over a little matter of money.

Hope you can come up with an amicable solution

a little bit of a overstatement i think, yes Rod and dtd has done great things but the poker boom started again long before. Grosvenor started the real Grand Prix guarenteeing major money for years, along with major festivals at most of there cardrooms for years and then the gukpt they also put major investment in to the cardroom magic system. If it wasnt for the Grosvenors and illegal cardrooms sprouting up there wouldnt of been the need for a club such as dtd.

and my 2 pennies worth is the bet should never of been called off and regardless of how much money ive got if I make a bet i chase it up not get a 3rd party or one of my staff. Im sure that Rob knew of this thread the day it went up and took nearly a month for him to reply.

Herbie for Consigliere
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Al_Pacino_and_Robert_Duvall_in_the_Godfather.jpg)

Jason, how does it look bad on James? He was completely unfairly caught in the middle of something he could do nothing about. He did the right thing, and was even nice and classy enough to come on and explain. Classic Keys, nothing surprising there.

I disagree, I don't think it looks bad at all on the lads. The fact that we know them as such nice guys proves that they feel they have a strong argument here. Everyone has been completely clear that there is absolutely no way Rob is motivated by a bet of £5k, and this is as little about money for them too. They like putting on prop bets, and know that there is an unwritten code of trust, and of common sense. In my opinion, common sense has a clear answer to the question of re-entries; if there is anything that could be doubtful, it should be stated by the party backing themselves in the challenge at the onset, and if it is not, they will have to go without it.

The great thing about a public forum like Blonde is that people are free to debate and give their opinions. It's not for other people to say when they think the debate is over; far smaller things have been debated at much greater length. If anyone disagrees, they are free to do so. If anyone says anything stupid, people are free to point and laugh. If an argument goes on and gets boring, people will vote by ignoring. I want to point and laugh at "Its probabaly costing me more taking the time to explain this to you and I don't mean to be arrogant, but none of you except keith got back to me" as probably the most hilariously arrogant thing I have ever heard. People are free to point and laugh at me.

I also think that it's worrying for the owner of the country's biggest poker club to think that he can manoeuvre things in his direction by brandishing the threat of a ban. It's basically bullying.

Just to add to what I said, although Rob could argue that re-entries weren't discussed, if I had the otherside of the bet I'd be pretty pissed off at this, like most people, I wouldn't have even considered the idea of it being a re-entry.

Great post.

I dunno Ray, re-entries were not discussed..I think they are fair game to be included....within the terms of the bet it has to reach 64 runners, there were no stipulations as to how from what I can read

That's a personal interpretation

I hope it all gets sorted out.

The fact that it wasn't discussed means it's totally open to interpretation, not that it means much but I've never known of a hu tournament being a re-entry either live or online and from the discussion that was had about it (itt i think) it seemed not many had.

+1 to it getting sorted out.

Would both parties accept arbitration (assuming such a person could be found)?

@smashed

Rob's accomplishments with dtd aren't being questioned here at all, and just because he has helped the industry I make my living in shouldn't result in myself and the other guys feeling obliged to let this issue settle. Fwiw, if Rob acknowledges that the bet we shook hands over is still running (as both parties haven't agreed for it to be stopped) then that would honestly draw a line under it for me and the outcome would settled at the end of the year. If he doesn't, then I can't think of any logical reason behind his persistence on this issue other than petty ego and not wanting to surrender something which is now; for better or for worse, a very public debate. All I know is that I feel pretty cheated over this with things as they stand,
LF

@TightEnd

as things stand most definitely not as I'm refusing to entertain the notion that the bet is 'off' because of any attempted reason given

Yeah, I like the independance of your thoughts in this thread Stu. I don't know why people get anxious about public debate and don't understand why normal talking points such as this should be hushed up. I mean Rob is worried about his integrity being questioned publically in such a format, but if you feel confident your bet cancellation is valid why worry? Good opportunity to set the record straight and quash any suggestion of questionable integrity imo. In reality insisting on advance payment after the bet was struck is questioning integrity. I pegged the arrogance as well and hence why I like the side of the underdog here. It might be a trivial amount to this guy but why treat the actual people involved in a similar trivial and dismissive way? Like pesky kids. If I chowed down in Vegas all smiles and laughs and found out I was lumped into the possible grimmer category when I got back I'd be like wtf. Why go to dinner with people you don't really respect and strike prop bets with people you don't think will pay? Seems to be massive overall -EV and so possible just playing the big man.

I agree pasting mail is low. The pesky kids need to learn not to give the moral high ground away so easy when debating in the futures.

Tighty, how is the re-entry thing different to arranging a football match for money and the other team turning up with twelve players and refusing to play if only allowed eleven citing than 'you didn't specify eleven players'?

You just don't do it because a football match is obviously eleven a side unless specified otherwise just like a freezeout tournament is obviously one entry per player unless specified otherwise.

One compromise that myself and Luke discussed was to give Rob action on the same bet for the February Monte Carlo that Simon mentioned earlier in this thread. We would let him have the re-entries and the money on account at DTD is he so wishes, but it would be an entirely separate bet that does not preclude Rob from paying up on this one if he doesn't run a 64 player heads up tournament before the end of 2011.

If Keith and Cos don't want to be a part of the second bet then I will buy their action to make up the £5k minimum.

I actually think it would have been within the rights to make it a re-entry. Rob's goal to get a HEADS UP comp with 64 runners, if he runs two days and uses re-entries, seems fair enough to me, if he has 8day 1s with re-entries, fair enough.

I think having it a re-entry is a way more sporting approach to the bet than just offering sat's with joke gtd overlays as the nature of the bet was "I believe i could get a HU comp to have 64 entries" not "I reckon because I have the resources i could induce 64 people to enter a comp because basically they'll be getting in for 1/3 of the price"

surely the idea behind it was "I can make this concept WORK" and THAT was actually what they were betting on, with the benchmark for the idea being successful as it getting 64 entrants. What I dont get, is why the bet has any influence on the running of the tournament? surely Rob/Simon had the idea of this tournament anyway otherwise rob wouldn't have mentioned it at the meal, and the bet was a small piece of "side-fun." So why the details of the bet needing to be confirmed for the tourney to go ahead I'm unclear on, unless the bet was actually

"I can run a completely unpractical, expensive tournament and convince 64 people to play" purely to win a £5,000 bet, which seems so retarded to me that i refuse to contemplate that it is possible. £50k bet, maybe, £200k bet, defo....

I still like our side of the bet even with re-entries. I've contacted Cos, Keith and Luke to find out if they are happy for the bet to go ahead and let Rob have his re-entries.

The gripe isn't really about re-entries per se, its about Rob snap cancelling when there was resistance to the idea from one half of our side. All he had to do was send one email addressed to the four of us or even one facebook message and this is all fine, we discuss and come to an agreement in plenty of time.

The fact that Rob didn't take the time to do that, missed his publishing deadline and scrapped the tournament is the reason why Rob has lost (assuming he doesn't try to arrange anything last minute which he is of course perfectly entitled to do), not a reason why the bet should be called off.

@LilD

exactly right, the sporting reason behind the wager was our opposing opinions on Rob being able to run a HU tournament and get 64 entrants (not re-entrants) to show up and play it on the day. The conversation arose after Rob revealed he wanted to run one, its not like one of us just snap said 'I bet you can't run a HU tourney...' randomly.

"I can run a completely unpractical, expensive tournament and convince 64 people to play" - this was our view of the claim and the sole reason behind us booking a financial wager!

LF

Thing is Tighty, I don't think that a suitable person could be found through Blonde because of this forums close links past and present with DTD

I honestly believe that if this was anyone but Rob Yong people would be piling on our side, but that would be rocking the boat and people don't like to do that. Even poker players.

Not sure I really agree with that Dan.  I think every respected thinker that has posted has come down on the side of the players and, frankly, Rob comes across like a spoilt child that threatens to take his ball home when he doesn't get his own way.

Ultimately you are all equals and took the bet as such but Rob, either because he owns DTD, has millions in the bank or whatever thinks he can simply dictate what happens and it is a ridiculously arrogant approach that cannot help but get peoples backs up.

Well the ball is in Robs court now, we'll see what happens

Stu had made a great post and I do see both sides of the story but can you honestly believe that Rob is in this situation over a poxy  £5k bet. There has to be something that we are unaware of as to why he has called it off. His legal bill just to open up the club ran to £500k plus and clearly for him to pay up is not an issue.

I  probably am not aware of how strongly these guys felt about the bet and it looks to me like they feel they are being grimmed. As far as I was aware Rob treated these guys as friends both at the club and in Vegas and I don't really see how the situation has escalated into such a massive blow up. Rob has been good to blOnde and the last thing I want is for us as a forum to be unwelcome at Dtd.

 I just hope dan and Luke can get in touch with Rob directly and sort this out. Just as you can be easily reached, then I am sure rob is just as accessible. Rob looks in a no win situation in this, but please try to see the bigger picture and sort it out man to man. Gl fellas

Everything else aside re-entries count for sure.

Not confident of winning the first round? :)

I guess I'd accept arbitration, as long as it wasnt 1 person (i.e. 3 neutral parties).

@Dan. I personally wouldn't allow an extention for February's Monte Carlo. The date I bet on was until the end of the year. When I made this bet, I genuinely felt like I was a decent favourite beccause:

- HU tournaments in this country don't seem to attract many runners.

- HU tournaments don't run very often so I doubt there would be a pool of regs ready to play them.

- A lot of the higher stakes players who are most likely to play this event wouldn't stay around or come back in 2 days after they busted the main for this.

- At least 3 of the 'almost certain' runners were involved in making the bet and thus wouldn't be playing.

- I thought the bet would need much more than 5k of investment to be won and thus Rob wouldn't cut his nose off to spite his face to win this one.

- Keith backs 3/4/5 DTD regs in tournaments that he'd be silly to enter into this one when it could cost him running the bet.

- I genuinely thought there was a good chance Rob could overlook the bet or just decide to pay up because i didn't fit well with schedules/other stuff.

- I have several friends who would play the event that if told about the bet I could probably dissuade from playing pretty easily.

- Being that it's run around the Monte Carlo event I felt most people's priority satellite would be for the main event I didn't feel that satellites would get the 40+ seat winners needed for a tournament with a 1/4 guarantee of the main event and a less desireable format for most.



I could be wrong on any of these points but that's just my take. After all this hoo-har (sp?) I feel like I'd go from a solid favourite to an underdog if extended til February as I believe there will be a lot more done to win the bet than when I initially made it.

Thats why I specified that it would be a separate bet. The loss of this one is not negotiable.

This is so shakespearean

Hi Stu, thanks for your kind words, although I disagree with you that this shouldn't look bad on me, I feel I am at least partially responsible for causing this situation as Rob asked me to do him a favour and, very basically, I didn't do it. To see his name dragged through the dirt in this thread really upsets me and I wanted to take responsibility for my mistake and try to put things right by showing people Rob's side of the story, even though I would prefer to stay out of it so I don't lose any friends here. However, I think most people still aren't taking a balanced view of the situation, mainly because it is much easier to understand the syndicate's position, i.e.

"We had a bet that something would not happen; it isn't happening, ergo we win the bet"

Rob's position is: it was explicitly stated at the outset that the existence of this bet was contingent upon Rob having £5k of action. When a dispute arose over reentries, Keith agreed to cancel his portion of the bet meaning Rob only had £4k of action (at best, £1k was still unaccounted for at this point), ergo the bet is off.

At the very least, I know I would hate to have to choose which of these statements is the more true.

Also, with regard to your comments on Rob's email manner, you have to remember the context in which all this is taking place. Put yourself in Rob's shoes, he's spent hundreds of thousands opening a venue "by poker players for poker players" catering to our every whim, and has taken a dozen or so of these poker players out in Vegas at great expense, then to have to deal with extremely disrespectful (possibly, afaik none of the players' emails to Rob have been posted in this thread for public dissection) email demands for money from those same players must feel like a slap in the face. Imho it would take a saint to reply in an entirely respectful and courteous manner under the circumstances.

I'm not saying whether or not Rob is within his rights to cancel the bet but I do want the passers-by in this thread to realise that things aren't as cut+dried as they look at first glance. So far imo only Simon Galloway seems to have made an effort to see things from both sides.

So much for staying out of it :(

When did this happen James?

I won't make a habit of reproducing personal emails/conversations etc but since this excerpt is entirely innocent but just addresses your point I thought I would.

[11/6/2011 11:56:16 PM] Greek: u caught wind of any of this bet stuff
[11/6/2011 11:56:21 PM] Greek: fking ballache
[11/6/2011 11:57:11 PM] Keith Johnson: nah rob mentioned something on friday but never got round to talking to him

Secondly,  if this was the case, shouldn't the remaining bettors be snap given an option to take on the extra amount? Pretty sure Luke or Dan would have. (I wouldn't fwiw).

Meh, passers-by are never given any credit. I don't see anybody lacking balance with regard to the technicalities of the dispute itself and suggesting names are being dragged thru the dirt is a bit drama queeny imo. What the average passer-by objects to is the dismissal of the dispute by one party. It feels uncomfortable that one party can tell the other to get stuffed and that is ok. That bollox about how Rob paid for dinner and catering for our every whim only compounds the situation. None of those things mean you have the right to treat these people and their complaint less than seriously. Rob's post ending "that is all I have to say on the matter" is evidence of such dismissal. You misinterpret comment about that attitude with judgement on the issue itself. If Rob made a bet with a serious individual nomatter what the money he wouldn't take such an approach. He would contact personally rather than get skolsuper to make some calls. It demonstrates a lazy attitude to the commitment.

As for the dispute itself. No doubt Rob is within his rights to clarify the £5k min action he stipulated if that is in question. However, pursuiting clarification more robustly would have avoided this current ambiguity. Also when he sought to investigate the re-entry detail he was told the bet was off if that was a condition by a single syndicate member. That syndicate member should have sought counsel from the other members and produced a definitive response. As such you can deffo see why there's doubt here and why he would question the validity of the bet. The dispute is whether that doubt validates cancelling the bet.

For me I don't like the fuck off or your banned approach to it really. But having said that I don't know why a group of lads are all going out on the town and letting one dude paid for it all. He's not their Dad or their boss is he? If you want to be treated as equal I don't think that is a good way to go about it. No such thing as a free lunch imo.

My memory wasn't 100% but I was at least sure that Dan and Luke had a combined 3k of action (of which I thought that 2k was Luke's and 1k was Dan's). I knew I had 1k, Keith had 1k and remembered Mitch had nothing. I couldn't remember whether you had bet.

I think we discussed this on Skype a few weeks ago and I told you that. As customers of DTD Rob has access to several of our contact details I'm sure.

Way before you were asked to get involved (I don't blame you at all here btw) could one of the DTD girls not have contacted us to clarify? How is that anyone's fault but ours. Rob booked the combined 5k of action and wrote it in his phone.



Speculation on the tone of our emails possibly being disrespectful is rediculous James. I'm more than happy to send you the whole email chain and you can judge if I was ever disrespectful.

I thanked Rob before departing that night and iirc I thanked him by email when trying to discuss this bet cordially too. You seem to forget that we've also given custom to DTD. I've made posts in the past about how great the place is - I even spoke about how great DTD was on the poker radio show. By the same token that these points are largely irrelevant to the bet, so is the fact that Rob took us out that night. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, because I'm REALLY not but I don't think it's a fair thing to say.

Your favouring Rob's side here is a bit disappointing from my pov but it won't affect the way me, Dan or Luke are friends with you. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Come off it Mantis - this was a dinner paid for by the boss of a club for some of its regular clients.

Maybe you're trying to belittle me or w/e because of our history on here but even you must know that's a rediculous statement.

Actually this changes a lot. When Keith cancels this brings up a couple of points

a) Rob has a legit reason to cancel the bet, but
b) Had the other bettors been informed, I would have bought Keiths action to keep the bet in place.

Just to clarify why I feel like we're getting mugged off, when the bet was booked the possible outcomes for the bettors were:

1) Rob realises that its not possible without doing in a ton of money on overlay and just pays the £5k (by far the most likely outcome imo)
2) Rob decides to knock it in on overlays to win our £5k, but in return we still get a ridiculously good value tournament full of qualifiers that are in for peanuts

Instead what has happened is that Rob tries to move the goalposts with the re-entry thing but this actually ends up giving him a legit get-out clause because it results in him not having enough action for the bet to proceed. The first I hear about it is an email saying that the bet is off citing reasons that are shaky at best. In response to my grievences I'm told by Rob that he really couldn't care less about this issue and that I'm banned from the club if I pursue it.

Imho this would also take a saint to respond to in an entirely courtious and respectful manner, and being told that we can do one if we don't like it is a bit of a slap in the face too.

Appreciate your understanding here mate, honestly I'm not trying to favour Rob it's just I think his side is underrepresented, which I think is inevitable tbh because his pov is harder to understand and also because the discussion is on blonde.

Re: Keith "agreeing", this is my assessment, from a lot of conversations with Rob, of how he sees it, it may not be what actually happened. Tbh what really happened is that Keith just took a "yeah whatever" attitude, as he usually does. Despite actually being in on the bet, he has somehow thus far managed to 'stay out of it' a lot better than I have.

Yeah sorry about that, told you it was my fault. However, you would have had to come to an agreement about the reentries as well as buying that extra action, and maybe buy Greekstein's action too as he was unequivocal about no reentries when I spoke to him.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TDqv7p4X4

Yo, the same important regs who can fck off if another e-mail lands? I wouldn't in any way belittle you for accepting free night cos it's normal teenage mistake. Would deffo have to belittle you now for thinking ur serious reg to this guy.

Sick I don't read vinny's diary brag.

do you have a diary?  where is it?

I feel that if a bet becomes ambiguous because one side manages to mess up an easy communication, then any doubt should fall in favour of the other side.

 Everyone agress that James was 100% right not to act as a random messenger, and should never have been put in the situation.

There are incredibly easy ways to get in touch with a group of people straight away, and Rob's club uses them at other times. Their publicity strategy has never been to ask a random UK poker hero to tell as many people as they can that there might be a tournament this weekend.  

The fact that Rob didn't use an easy method of communication really makes it feel like his reasoning was something like:

"These pesky kids seem to have outwitted me, and forgotten who is boss. I thought I had established that by spending lots of money on them. I'll remind them who is boss by pretending that something that is of reasonable importance to them is of no importance to me at all; so much so that I won't do anything myself, but instead just get one of the people they look up to act as Mr Boss' messenger."

Bottom of page 74 in the rail, used to be good now never gets bumped or updated!

Slowly but surely things are floating to the surface and progress of sorts is being made.

From both sides of the bet, it is reasonably clear that more could have been done by either side to remove ambiguity and "check the trade."  From a neutral perspective, it seemed very likely that even the fundamental stuff such as "who has what action?" was in doubt.

When several players collectively book £5k of action, it seems reasonable to be very clear on who has what.  It also seems reasonable for there to be collective responsibility and collectively, there was at least 1 golden opportunity to notice that all was not well and check the validity of the prop.

On Rob's side of the coin, not his finest hour either, as has been pointed out.

The only way this gets solved anything like amicably is if the players realise that from Rob's view (or James' view of Rob's view) there was genuine and justifiable doubt AND/OR Rob realises that the players had genuine and justifiable grounds to believe the bet still to be intact.

Obviously, I only spotted the 'free lunch' thing, but now having read the rest of it, I can't agree with this point either. Someone taking a group of people out for dinner is fine imo. I've been out a few times in groups, where someone has declared they are paying etc. I don't see the problem?

in total how many times have you declared that you are paying? becareful of free loaders mate ;)

lol @ me ever paying for lunch/dinner ;)

in that case how many freebies you had

Rob booked the bet at dinner. HE wrote down who booked what in his phone. I remembered my piece as did the others theirs'. Everyone was aware of the action they had booked - seemingly apart from Rob. Am I paying for Rob's mistake? Since no escrow was asked for, what would have been wrong with asking for our money on 1st Jan assuming no HU tourney ran? This could have been dealt with a lot more efficiently if we were contacted months ago - Rob's responsibility. We werent.

You have to remember here, it was in all of our best interests to not remind Rob of the bet and thus prompt his actions on getting it done and thus winning the bet.

Keys contacted me briefly but when he saw the situation could get tricky, he understandably didn't want to get involved between two parties of friends so I took it upon myself to email Rob, who then took it upon himself to act as judge and jury and call the bet off. That's part of what's pissed me off so much tbh.

Cos - I am not trying to be a smart arse with the benefit of hindsight.  But having worked for years in and around trading floors, the first thing you learn is to check your trade.  If you had the trade absolutely sewn up, no ambiguity whatsoever, all the terms agreed, then you absolutely could have let Rob sleep his prop.

But, there were gaping holes in the prop.  And some of those holes are taking on water.  It usually doesn't matter in the "level 1" prop I wrote about ~ you just agree to cancel.  But this has now gone from a "level1" to a "level2" - largely due to the off-hand manner that you were subjected to.

Maybe you could fight your own corner and say that you had £1k with Rob "clear trade" and treat that away from the group.  But you admit yourself that re-entry hadn't been discussed, and if it had, you would have wanted to cancel.

In answer to the question why didn't i run the event anyway.

To add any additional comp is going to require extra blow in dealers and incur travel and accommodation costs and as you may have noticed over the years i don't include heads up events as i prefer not to run them, so, even though i was prepared to run this one, once Rob said it wasn't going into the Monte Carlo pdf i was happy to cancel.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the prop bet was for a minimum £5000 and yet from reading this thread no one seems to know who took the fifth £1000, just because no one thought to clarify whether 64 runners meant unique or total inclusive of re entry it is a bit late to complain later and wish to withdraw which i understand Cos did, at which point Rob could have said the bet still stands. If Rob had been able to confirm who all stakeholders were and collect payment i would have the job of making it happen and with the satellite systems we use online and live, two day 1's and re entry which all my comps £150 buy in + have had since June it would be a formailty hence i have offered 2 - 1 in February.

It has been suggested Rob should honour this bet if the event doesn't happen, who would he collect from or pay the 5th £1000 to and if the bet was for a minimum £5000 would he still have to pay ?

I have known Rob for approx 10 years and worked with him the last 6 years, one thing i know for certain, he would never not pay a losing bet and anyone who knows him well would be aware that £5000 is like a £5 bet so it's certainly not about the money.

In my opinion this thread should never have happened, Cos keeps pointing out how Rob could have contacted them but as Rob is here at least 4 nights a week he isn't exactly difficult to speak to, clearly the £1000 means enough to some that they would choose to flame on an open forum to try to force Rob to pay up. As a mate he has asked me whether i think he should pay and based on everything i have read i don't think so.

Cheers

ACES

I mean, that's just the worst post you've ever made

What hasnt been made clear up until Simon+James posted was the WAY the bet was made, how it looks from the outside is something like...

"I'm going to run a HUcomp at monte carlo, and i reckon we could get 64 runners"

"nah, no way you'll do that"

"ok, wanna bet?"

BUT if it was something along the lines of...

"there is no way you can get 64 runners for a HU comp"

"OK, give me £5k's worth of bets and I'll do it"

Then it makes Rob's side look a lot lot better IMO - because that was not clear earlier, and that makes this point


Pretty massive, and should defo have been mentioned earlier.

Simon,

As I've previously mentioned in this thread, Rob knew he had £5k of action from his post on blonde which echoed what he recorded on his phone. A quick email could have clarified the situation but Rob chose to appoint a reluctant messenger and it all crumbles from there.

All Rob had to do was tell someone in the group of bettors that Keith pulled out and there wasn't enough action anymore. In that case this thread and this issue do not exist. I do however stand by my actions given the information that I had. Until it came to light that Keith cancelled with Rob, I knew of no legit reason from Robs side why he should be allowed to cancel. Only now do I find out that he actually had a legit reason from the start.

So it all shakes down as a big misunderstanding as to who knew what at which point.

Cya in December I guess

Simon,

It seems you're either choosing to selectively read parts of the thread that suit or you havent read the whole thing but I want to address your post.

There was no real ambiguity about the amounts on the part of those who had bet with Rob. Keys asked me and I pretty quickly said, me - 1k, Keith 1k, Luke & Dan 3k of which was 2k/1k. If Rob was unclear, it was because HE hadn't written it down in his phone properly.

Now when James asked me about re-entrants I said '1 re-entrant is still 1 runner - that was my view'. Now James only asked me this very recently, MONTHS after the bet was booked. Rob seemingly just took it upon himself to make no further contact, even through James which is why I emailed to ask what was happening with the bet, something I didn't want to do but realised we had to sort this issue, even if I had to sell my 1k to one of the other guys even if I personally couldn't agree on the re-entries (I might have given how long late in the day Rob had left it).

I asked Keith on the 6th of November and he stated he hadn't pulled out so when exactly did Rob not have 5k of action?

Rob made it clear he had 5k of action from a prior post on blonde.

Bearing all the above in mind, I don't understand how you can take that view. With respect, you can't be unbiased as Rob pays your wages.

Gamblers and poker players should remain seperate.  This is what happens when non gambling people gamble.

At any dog/horse track this would have been settled instantly

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, would it be reasonable if the onus for informing the group that they were now short fell on Keith rather than Rob?

I think if the responsibility fell on Keith, me, Dan and Luke we would have a right to be pissed off at Keith but as we are the 4 bettors making up the 5k of action, I wouldn't blame Rob as much if the bet was cancelled. However, I would see it that both Keith and Rob should contact us to see if anyone wants to take the 1k shortfall. In this case that would have happened within seconds.

Come off it buddy, I've made loads worse than that. The whole problem here is Rob's attitude to this insignificant bet is like Dubai's attitude to a 0.25c/0.50c game. Just can't be arsed with the hassle of it. Simon said the bet is like £5 to Rob so financially insignificant. I'm afraid to say it's clear he sees the people involved as equally insignificant. A few months down the track and sensing a problem the dude can just about be arsed to send a messenger boy to ask around. No courtesy of personal contact and when he becomes irritated by the pesky kids attempts to contact him they're told to fck off. I don't know why serious clients who get rewarded with Vegas dinners for their custom would be told to fck off from the business over a £5 bet. Oh I do it's cos those people are insignificant.

Thus my post is quite pertinent and questions the notion that the group are taken out cos they are in any way important to the business or indeed to the individual. In fact the whole thing is a bit weird. On the one hand you got a group of kids who think they are serious clients/friends when clearly they aren't, cos you don't tell clients/friends to fck off over a fiver. On the other hand you got this Rob dude who's £265,000 down in unpaids but happy to carry on making this type of bet over a dinner he's paying for with people he doesn't rightly trust. If I had a bet with anybody I respected and thought there was a problem I would pick up the phone and get in touch. The whole Vegas dinner deal reminds me of some puff daddy video where diddy is surrounded by his bitches all on chains. This German guy I once knew said that if you act like a biatch you get treated like a biatch and hey presto. Don't know why being German is relevant but they are quite efficient people.

However, the reality is your handshake shouldn't have different grades of seriousness and commitment according to the value of the bet and the people you're betting.

You've just never been significant enough that anyone's taken you to dinner by the sounds of it.

Good one ;)

haha so true :)

ok, this post is actually good.

fwiw i see rob's side a lot better since Key's last post, but still think he handled it wrong by not snap ringnig dan/luke or someone next day and saying "there is longer £5k's action, you have 20seconds to commit to the £5k cos im on a deadline or the bet is off, as firmly agreed at the start"

tbh I think everyone should shake hands and move along now

LOL Amazing post

<3 Mantis

tbh I think everyone should shake hands and move along now

+1

+2

Which puff daddy video is this?

Might be "All about the Benjamins" with Puff Daddy and Lil Kim.

There are way too many extraneous issues in this thread:

The bet facts:

1. A bet was made between Rob yong and a syndicate of 4 poker players.

2. Rob yong requested a minimum of 5k action for this bet. This was achieved in the following way:

Dan Morgan 1k
Cos 1k
Keith 1k
Luke fields 2k

Although not yet substantiated it is understood and I believe accepted that dan was to cover off lukes 2k as he was unknown to rob.

3. The bet was that rob yong was to hold a heads up tournament with 64 runners before midnight on 31st dec 2011.


Issues on facts:



5k funds: this seems to be the flimsiest of points. There is a suggestion that Keith wanted to pull out if re-entry was allowed. As far as I can see, so long as the syndicate put up 5k the bet stands. Keith should offer his stake to the existing syndicate to buy. I also believe that ANY party should be able to buy this action as it is absolutely a fixed sum to a fixed bet. The only way it couldn't be sold is if rob had a reasonable objection, such as he knew the buyer couldn't afford the bet or owed him money. This objection is easily by passed by Keith still being responsible for the 1k and having essentially privately sold his own action.

However Keith cannot just pull out of the bet and frustrate it for all parties.

RE-ENTRY

Having been accepted within poker, I believe that although it may not have been foreseen at the time of the bet, that this must be allowed. (fwiw my personal point of view is that it absolutely shouldn't be allowed).

However, everyone knew who they were dealing with (head of UK's biggest poker venue, entreprenuer, and poker website to use at will) , what he had at his disposal. Although possibly not considered at the time of the wager, this should now be accepted.

Providing that Rob doesn't go beyond the boundaries of reason, like having a 64 runner tourney and paying 64 spots just to win the bet.

Irrelevant points itt:

Escrow; mentioned on 4th November for 1st time. Irrelevant

Robs 250k + unpaid

Who paid for dinner

What the money means to the parties

Third party (& non written) communication. This is quite simply the most irrelevant fact itt. If the money means so little to rob that he chooses not to deal with it personally that's his problem.

Whether it forms part of monte Carlo and went in literature - irrelevant


I believe if you consider the above an accurate reflection then the bet is still running, Keith has a decission to make, and that if the event does not run then the syndictae win.

Sigh, this is getting out of hand. This whole thing should have been kept private between myself and the betting syndicate, I know Cos, Dan and Luke are a really nice bunch of lads and they would never have brought this into the pubic arena for any malicious reason, however its now becoming a flaming thread and not doing any of us any favours. We all should know better than to give complete tools like Mantis, whoever the hell he is, an opportunuity to get a little attention, does this guy actually know any of us well? Okay, I paid for a night on Vegas, big deal, its irrelevent to the bet, yet this jockey keeps going on about it, puff daddy, god, any one us could have and would have picked the bill up that night, if fact, most of the stuff on here is irrelevant to the bet.

Cos, Luke, Dan, lets just talk about this over a beer when we next see eachother, there are no hard feelings on my side at all, as I know genuinely that you guys would never wanted things to result into this, just wish you had not brought this onto a forum, Simon is a cheesed off because Cos posted my personal emails on here, but he will get over it! Rob

Hi Rob,

Mantis is pathetic, dont pay any attention to his posts, most intelligent people don't.

I'm disappointed about how this has turned out and I've made it clear that I think the bet should have stood but I'm going to just forget it until I get back to England next year and we'll talk in person.

I didn't start the thread to cause trouble - initially it was started to ask for opinions on re-entries should it be an issue and then escalated once the outcome was asked for.

Hopefully it will be my last post in the thread.