Defining the terms of a bet

[easypickings]

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."

[Eso Kral]

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?

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

[Simon Galloway]

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.

[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.

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?

[smashedagain]

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.

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

[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.

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

[smashedagain]

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.

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

[GreekStein]

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.

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.

[Simon Galloway]

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.

[DTD-ACES]

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

[SuuPRlim]

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.

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

[SuuPRlim]

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

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.

Pretty massive, and should defo have been mentioned earlier.

[DMorgan]

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

[GreekStein]

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

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.

[Dubai]

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