Defining the terms of a bet

[GreekStein]

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.

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.

[GreekStein]

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.

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

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.

[DMorgan]

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

Robert Yong
5 Nov (5 days ago)

If I get one more email about this you are all barred. Over to you

[david3103]

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?

[DMorgan]

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.

[jakally]

What's changed? What aren't we being told?

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

[Skippy]

What's changed? What aren't we being told?

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.

[jakally]

What's changed? What aren't we being told?

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.

[geordieneil]

What's changed? What aren't we being told?

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

[Skippy]

What's changed? What aren't we being told?

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.

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.

[Skippy]

Another reason why I think it's important.

Which means that Rob does a good £15k in overlay when he could just pay out on this bet and be done with it.

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.

[DTD-ACES]

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

[DMorgan]

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

[DMorgan]

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.

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

4. Somehow I have to get 64 runners into a £1K heads-up comp before 31st Dec 2011 to save face and win a £5k prop bet that I made with some players over dinner in Vegas

[sovietsong]

This all seems a bit strange.