Defining the terms of a bet

[GreekStein]

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.

[DMorgan]

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

[nirvana]

This is so shakespearean

[skolsuper]

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.

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

[GreekStein]

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.

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).

[MANTIS01]

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.

[GreekStein]

£1k was still unaccounted for at this point), ergo the bet is off.

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.

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.

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.

[GreekStein]

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.

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.

[DMorgan]

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.

[skolsuper]

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.

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.

[skolsuper]

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.

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.

[skolsuper]

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.

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

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.

[celtic]

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.

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

[sovietsong]

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.

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

do you have a diary?  where is it?