Defining the terms of a bet

[mondatoo]

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.

[Simon Galloway]

it doesn't matter anyway because the terms were clearly defined when the bet was made.

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

[Simon Galloway]

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.

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.

[DMorgan]

it doesn't matter anyway because the terms were clearly defined when the bet was made.

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

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.

[smashedagain]

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

[Karabiner]

Herbie for mod.

[LFmagic]

@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

[smashedagain]

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

[doogan]

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.

[bobAlike]

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

Herbie for Consigliere

[easypickings]

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

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.

[mondatoo]

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.

[mondatoo]

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

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.

Great post.

[TightEnd]

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.

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.

[mondatoo]

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.

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.