Hope this is the right forum. If not please move.
I don't have any action on this bet but I'd appreciate your thoughts.
On Aug 26 2010 2 Americans Tom "Durrrr" Dwan gave Daniel "Jungleman" Cates 3-1 odds on $500,000 on a 50,000 hand 200/400 NL 4 tabling match. For reference they play about 500 hands an hour. Note that either guy was at any time able to buy out or concede.
Durrrr and Jungleman appointed 3 match arbitrators.
Previously Tom had played ~ 60,000 non challenge hands in ~ two weeks against Victor "Isildur" Blom
Lots of non participants bet on the match. Some bet on who would win the match, some crossbooked the 200/400 action, some did both.
They played on Full Tilt Poker (FTP) where Tom was a signed pro.
After playing 6,000 hands on the first day, the pace slowed considerably. This was mainly due to Durrrr refusing to play for a few months, because in his own words "I didn't feel like it". At this point there was considerable unrest and pressure for Tom to play.
On Apr 15 2011, almost 8 months after the challenge had started, Full Tilt Poker closed to players based in America. In June 2011 Full Tilt shut down to all players, owing them ~$300 million.
At this point they had played ~18,000 hands and Jungleman was up ~$1.3 million or 32 buyins. Poker variance simulators suggest that if the contestants were equally skilled, Tom would have about a 10% chance of winning the challenge. Note that prior to playing the challenge Jungleman was up about 20 buyins in 10,000 hands against durrrr (I don't have those numbers to hand so just guestimating). Given Player A is up about 52 buyins in 28,000 hands on player B it is, absent other information, extremely likely that, for those 28,000 hands, that player A had an edge (probably a significant one too) on player B. 52 buyins is not an insignificant amount over 28,000 hands.
During FTP's downtime they had the option to play on other sites whether for real money or for play money with the real cash amount settled offline. After the June shutdown Tom stated that he no longer felt an obligation to Full Tilt. I do not know if Jungleman pushed Tom to play during this period or whether he just accepted this reasoning. Nonetheless they agreed to wait until Full Tilt came back (or was announced busto).
In the period Full Time was down, Jungleman moved to London and played plenty of online poker. Tom mainly played live games.
On July 31, Pokerstars bought Full Tilt. On October 9 2012 it was announced that Full Tilt would relaunch on November 9 2012. Both Tom and Jungleman had relocated outside the States and were at this time free to play on Full Tilt, although not when they returned to the States such as for the WSOP.
Tom has played ~60,000 hands on FTP since its relaunch, ~2,000 of which were part of the challenge. Jungleman has stated that he's been available to play pretty much at all times, Tom disputes this. The one arbitrator agreed with Jungleman's take.
They agreed to play 4,000 hands a month starting in August. However, they played one session of about 150 hands, before Tom quit. Jungleman was available to play throughout August.
Despite this both have stated their intentions to complete the challenge. One of the arbitrators expressed confidence that September would see many hands played.
There is, at this point, no dispute between Tom and Daniel that the challenge is still on, and due for completion at some point.
Two bettors with $ on Tom insist that the sidebets, future crossbooking and previous crossbooking are all null and void. The precis of their arguments are:
- The events of Apr 15 2011 amount to an Act of God.
- Tom moved to play live poker while Jungleman continued to play online. Since the two forms are pretty different, this is an unforeseeable and unfair advantage for Jungleman.
- Financial status of poker players is subject to fluctuations. Thus someone who had money to pay 3 years ago might not have it now. If Tom were to win they might not get paid, thus if they have to pay in the event of a Jungleman win, they are getting freerolled.
- If you bet the over in a baseball match and it is rained off in the 4th inning with scores of 10-8, the bet is void and you do not win it.
- The previous crossbooking is not valid since when they made the bet they thought that Tom would adjust better. Since they thought they'd do better in the second half of the hands than the first, it's unfair to ask them to pay for the first half of the hands, when the circumstances surrounding the second half have changed to their disadvantage.
- If this was at an online sportsbook the events of Apr 15 2011 would have nulled all bets.
The precis of the 'bets are still on' argument are.
- The events of Apr 15 2011 did not stop the parties from playing. They could have moved to another site.
- Tom's decision to play live poker and Jungleman's decision to play online poker were both choices. They both knew they'd have to complete to challenge.
- The bets should mirror the challenge. Since the challenge is still valid so are the bets.
- The match was not rained off, it had a rain delay.
- Saying the bets are null because you might be getting freerollled is not fair. They have no evidence that they were getting freerolled.
- If they were worried about getting freerolled, they could have asked for an escrow after Apr 15 2011. Since they did not, their point is invalid.
- If they thought a year's hiatus would invalidate the challenge, they could have said so at the time. The arbitrators might then have forced the participants to find an alternative way to complete the hands. However, they did not state their belief that all bets were invalid until this month.
- 7.5 months was plenty of time to complete the challenge prior to the events of Apr 15 2011. That they were unable to was due to Tom's reluctance and refusal to play. It is therefore ridiculous to claim that the "forced hiatus" led them to an unforeseeable disadvantage.
I don't have any money on this outcome but I'd appreciate hearing your opinions.
I don't have any action on this bet but I'd appreciate your thoughts.
On Aug 26 2010 2 Americans Tom "Durrrr" Dwan gave Daniel "Jungleman" Cates 3-1 odds on $500,000 on a 50,000 hand 200/400 NL 4 tabling match. For reference they play about 500 hands an hour. Note that either guy was at any time able to buy out or concede.
Durrrr and Jungleman appointed 3 match arbitrators.
Previously Tom had played ~ 60,000 non challenge hands in ~ two weeks against Victor "Isildur" Blom
Lots of non participants bet on the match. Some bet on who would win the match, some crossbooked the 200/400 action, some did both.
They played on Full Tilt Poker (FTP) where Tom was a signed pro.
After playing 6,000 hands on the first day, the pace slowed considerably. This was mainly due to Durrrr refusing to play for a few months, because in his own words "I didn't feel like it". At this point there was considerable unrest and pressure for Tom to play.
On Apr 15 2011, almost 8 months after the challenge had started, Full Tilt Poker closed to players based in America. In June 2011 Full Tilt shut down to all players, owing them ~$300 million.
At this point they had played ~18,000 hands and Jungleman was up ~$1.3 million or 32 buyins. Poker variance simulators suggest that if the contestants were equally skilled, Tom would have about a 10% chance of winning the challenge. Note that prior to playing the challenge Jungleman was up about 20 buyins in 10,000 hands against durrrr (I don't have those numbers to hand so just guestimating). Given Player A is up about 52 buyins in 28,000 hands on player B it is, absent other information, extremely likely that, for those 28,000 hands, that player A had an edge (probably a significant one too) on player B. 52 buyins is not an insignificant amount over 28,000 hands.
During FTP's downtime they had the option to play on other sites whether for real money or for play money with the real cash amount settled offline. After the June shutdown Tom stated that he no longer felt an obligation to Full Tilt. I do not know if Jungleman pushed Tom to play during this period or whether he just accepted this reasoning. Nonetheless they agreed to wait until Full Tilt came back (or was announced busto).
In the period Full Time was down, Jungleman moved to London and played plenty of online poker. Tom mainly played live games.
On July 31, Pokerstars bought Full Tilt. On October 9 2012 it was announced that Full Tilt would relaunch on November 9 2012. Both Tom and Jungleman had relocated outside the States and were at this time free to play on Full Tilt, although not when they returned to the States such as for the WSOP.
Tom has played ~60,000 hands on FTP since its relaunch, ~2,000 of which were part of the challenge. Jungleman has stated that he's been available to play pretty much at all times, Tom disputes this. The one arbitrator agreed with Jungleman's take.
They agreed to play 4,000 hands a month starting in August. However, they played one session of about 150 hands, before Tom quit. Jungleman was available to play throughout August.
Despite this both have stated their intentions to complete the challenge. One of the arbitrators expressed confidence that September would see many hands played.
There is, at this point, no dispute between Tom and Daniel that the challenge is still on, and due for completion at some point.
Two bettors with $ on Tom insist that the sidebets, future crossbooking and previous crossbooking are all null and void. The precis of their arguments are:
- The events of Apr 15 2011 amount to an Act of God.
- Tom moved to play live poker while Jungleman continued to play online. Since the two forms are pretty different, this is an unforeseeable and unfair advantage for Jungleman.
- Financial status of poker players is subject to fluctuations. Thus someone who had money to pay 3 years ago might not have it now. If Tom were to win they might not get paid, thus if they have to pay in the event of a Jungleman win, they are getting freerolled.
- If you bet the over in a baseball match and it is rained off in the 4th inning with scores of 10-8, the bet is void and you do not win it.
- The previous crossbooking is not valid since when they made the bet they thought that Tom would adjust better. Since they thought they'd do better in the second half of the hands than the first, it's unfair to ask them to pay for the first half of the hands, when the circumstances surrounding the second half have changed to their disadvantage.
- If this was at an online sportsbook the events of Apr 15 2011 would have nulled all bets.
The precis of the 'bets are still on' argument are.
- The events of Apr 15 2011 did not stop the parties from playing. They could have moved to another site.
- Tom's decision to play live poker and Jungleman's decision to play online poker were both choices. They both knew they'd have to complete to challenge.
- The bets should mirror the challenge. Since the challenge is still valid so are the bets.
- The match was not rained off, it had a rain delay.
- Saying the bets are null because you might be getting freerollled is not fair. They have no evidence that they were getting freerolled.
- If they were worried about getting freerolled, they could have asked for an escrow after Apr 15 2011. Since they did not, their point is invalid.
- If they thought a year's hiatus would invalidate the challenge, they could have said so at the time. The arbitrators might then have forced the participants to find an alternative way to complete the hands. However, they did not state their belief that all bets were invalid until this month.
- 7.5 months was plenty of time to complete the challenge prior to the events of Apr 15 2011. That they were unable to was due to Tom's reluctance and refusal to play. It is therefore ridiculous to claim that the "forced hiatus" led them to an unforeseeable disadvantage.
I don't have any money on this outcome but I'd appreciate hearing your opinions.