Defining the terms of a bet

[TightEnd]

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

[LFmagic]

@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

[LFmagic]

@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

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

[DMorgan]

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.

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.

[DMorgan]

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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....

[DMorgan]

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.

[LFmagic]

@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

[DMorgan]

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

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.

[redarmi]

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.

[DMorgan]

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

[smashedagain]

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

[Royal Flush]

Everything else aside re-entries count for sure.

[smashedagain]

Everything else aside re-entries count for sure.

Not confident of winning the first round?