Madis Erit kahtlustatav pettus(t)es: Rahad tagastamata, valetamine jpm.

[rollkopter]

pokkerisheriff, äkki järgmine kord kui madis matkama läheb, läheksid kaasa?

[pokkerisheriff]

pokkerisheriff, äkki järgmine kord kui madis matkama läheb, läheksid kaasa?

kui 5000 euri annad, siis kaalun seda.

[ok2aa]

kui 5000 euri annad, siis kaalun seda.

like

[jasssass]

Madise tähelend siin hakkab vaikselt hääbuma. Madis The Legend.

R.I.P.

[udikaz]

tundub jah et madis on rahul ja investorid on õnnelikud. win-win ending. sickness.

[TaistoJ]

Ma ei mõista miks te vingute investorite üle. Mitmed investorid on kirjutanud siia, et on saatnud kirju Madisele, et nõuavad kogu stake summat tagasi, kuid temalt nad vastuseid saanud pole.

[Jeebus]

Most Viewed Threads 7. koht küll EPIC pole

[sorm]

7. juulini on aega 2 päeva! Svensa tegi kontoris juba trenni vaikselt...

[Poke]

wtf srsly keegi pole näinud tüüpi mingi pea 3 nädalat????
eksis ära matkamas?
või peidab kapis ennast?

[sm0ntaan]

( Click to show/hide )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyhRe...eature=related

[sorm]

see korra juba käis läbi siit .. GG

[ok2aa]

ootan homset update

[ranka]

07.07.2012 jääb meile kõigile meelde kui 11/09/2001

[Poke]

"Matkav Madis":D:D
kas Svenza pidi 7-dal pöördelt kannaga trikki tegema?

[udikaz]

usun et madis on 07.07.2012 kuupäeval kodune ja vaatab emmega meeleheitel koduperenaisi...raskeks läheb :S

[totaldonk]

äkki ütles aidaa eestimaale mõneks ajaks :D

[BentleyMulsanne]

No eritialfaemane kus oled. . Ega see sind veel meheks ei tee, et suutsid 2800 EURiga naisi ajutisel ligi tõmmata ja ega see ka ei tee, et suutsid roosa topi omastamisega neid eelmisi veel pikalt enda uksetaha meelitadak. Poiss tegusi on vaja, mõned tunnid on aega. Kui vajad abi, ära kõhkle, helista 55 94 94 96, kui sind sinna võetakse - oled kaitstud.

[pokkerisheriff]

Kui vajad abi, ära kõhkle, helista 55 94 94 96, kui sind sinna võetakse - oled kaitstud.

prantsuse võõrleegioni värbamisnumber?

[BentleyMulsanne]

Võibolla on Erit oma parima sõbra pool. Ei tea kas hotamy ka pildile jäi.

( Click to show/hide )

[jrgn hell]

livb on suht samasse auku kirjutanud päris hea posti. Ma ei oska seda nii copyda, et normal htmli mingi formatting ka jääb, aga kes tahab, lugegu sealt lehelt teist posti ülevalt. Ei osanud/saanud poste eralid avada ka.

http://olivierbusquet.com/Blog/


The Value of Speaking Up

>> February 5th, 2012
>>
>> During the PCA High-roller, 2 well known players on either side of me were talking about a bet they had made a few months earlier. They disagreed about the details of a hand played online and bet on who was right. Everyone who was at my table or the table next to mine will know the specific players involved and the bet that I'm talking about but the point of my post is not based on who was involved but rather on the other players around and the community as a whole so for the purpose of this post I'll just reference player A and player B.
>>
>> The bet: As far as I know, the hand in question came up in conversation while they were playing a live tournament. They disagreed on some major details of the hand, like the size of the pot and the betting throughout the hand. Player A had the hand he was referencing saved on his computer and printed the hand history that he and player B had played. It matched his details exactly and he presented the print out to Player B claiming he won the bet. Player B responded by saying that he was talking about a different hand, a hand that was between him and a third player, and claimed that the bet was null and void since they were talking about different hands. Player A, however, disagreed saying that they had bet on the hand he had printed out and that Player B owed him the $10k they had bet.
>>
>> They argued back and forth for a while but didn't really make much progress. It started to become frustrating to hear them talking about this especially when they seemed to be talking in circles and when I thought the situation was pretty clearcut. It's not necessarily that I thought I knew who was right, (though I had a strong opinion in favor of Player A,) but more that I thought that they weren't addressing the important and relevant issues. In my opinion, an important issue that was mostly ignored was how specific they were about the hand they were betting on when they originally made the bet. Player B didn't seem to have much of an argument since he was claiming that the hand he thought they bet on was between him and a third player. Why would Player A bet on a hand that he wasn't involved in? Wouldn't that strike Player B as strange and at least require some clarification when they originally made the bet? Furthermore, the third player that Player B played his hand with was sponsored by the same Poker site as and is the same ethnicity as Player A, strongly suggesting that when they made the bet Player B had simply mistaken the two players. This mistake, in my opinion, was clearly the reason for the discrepancy and was Player B's mistake alone, making him responsible for losing the bet and owing Player A the money. I tried to steer the argument in this direction but Player B was mostly deflecting and making unreasonable arguments. We made some progress but ultimately not enough. Player A offered to have a trusted third party arbitrate their dispute but Player B refused saying that he was willing to try to come to a resolution between the two of them instead, a disingenuous attempt at trying to seem like an honest negotiator while ensuring that he maintained the ability to simply refuse to agree and/or pay.
>>
>> This bet is the perfect example of the value of escrow and arbitrate. When people make bets, obviously a very common practice among poker players, there is very little in terms of enforcement mechanisms to ensure that bets are paid out honestly and fairly. When there is a legitimate dispute, (though I have a strong opinion in favor of one player this situation still strikes me as being a "legitimate dispute") there needs to be a fair way to resolve it. Deferring to a trusted third party (or committee) to resolve disputes is simple, straightforward and fair. Escrowing the money beforehand ensures that the players will abide by the arbitrator's decision. WIthout this enforcement mechanism, a dishonest/unreasonable better can freeroll an honest/reasonable one. In other words, without being willing to escrow and arbitrate, the system favors and incentivizes unethical behavior. There have been countless examples, especially recently, of poker players acting dishonestly and unreasonably in situations involving money, whether in regards to bets, stakes, loans, or other financial transactions. Given a system that rewards bad behavior, this should be anything but surprising. In theory, a player's reputational risk serves as a counter to this incentive system but in my opinion, it is not nearly strong enough. The balance is clearly in favor of rewarding unethical behavior, an unacceptable and extremely unfortunate consequence that undoubtedly influences the exterior perception that poker players are shady and unethical degenerates.
>>
>> All of this is pretty well known and understood in the poker community, I know that I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary here. However, most people seem to think that the only way they can protect themselves in this system is by being extra vigilant about who they get involved with financially. This is pretty basic and common sensical but I think there is an additional option that most people ignore. I wanted to write about this particular bet/discussion because I think it is the epitome of a conflict that could have been genuinely improved by a sense of mutual responsibility that other players should share with each other. What I'm mostly talking about is peer/social pressure. There were at least 10-20 players who were listening to the discussion, many even laughing at some of the ridiculous things being said. Most of them clearly had an opinion, (my impression is that they basically all agreed with Player A) but none of them spoke up. They whispered to each other and made snide comments/jokes but that was it. None of them offered up a real opinion in favor of any particular point of view. I tried, respectfully, to offer my thoughts and I think that helped progress the conversation positively, but ultimately it was not enough. However, if everyone who was listening to the conversation and had an opinion spoke up together and shared their feelings, (especially if a consensus emerged which I think would have) I'm convinced that this situation could and would have been resolved. I'm not saying that everyone should have ganged up on one of the players, yelling that they were a scumbag and should pay the other player, which I could see happening if people took this idea too far and/or used it as a way to blindly backup their friends. I do, however, think that the dynamic was such that if a clear and overwhelming consensus emerged, either one of the players involved would have capitulated enough to come to a resolution. Specifically, I think that in the face of overwhelming opposition to the view that he clearly won the bet, Player A would have dropped his claim and agreed that the bet was void. Similarly, though I don't think that Player B would have agreed to pay Player A immediately, I think it is very likely that he would have felt forced to agree to escrow and arbitrate - which would have produced an acceptable and fair resolution to this conflict. There are obviously a wide range of potential ways players could have expressed their opinions in a circumstance like this. However, I think there are only a few legitimate ones. In this case, in a respectful but insistent fashion, the players around the discussion should have come together and tried to convince player A to agree to escrow and arbitrate. Even if the discussion itself, it was clear that he cared what other people thought. Player B actually tried to use the idea that everyone he spoke to agreed with him, but Player A shot back by saying "if by everyone you mean your best friend and livb". I strongly believe that if all the players around agreed that the only fair way to resolve this bet was to escrow and arbitrate and if they were both clear and unambiguous with player A, he would have eventually begrudgingly agreed. In other words, if the other players listening could somehow had perceived the situation in a way that implied they had some small stake in the outcome being fair, then there is a much higher chance that the outcome would actually have been fair.
>
>> People will probably respond by saying that it's not their business to get involved in other people's affairs, that it's simply not appropriate to comment or intercede when you're not involved. However, I disagree for a few reasons. First, this discussion was specifically had in public. They were freely and openly talking about their bet at the table and in front of others. If they wanted to keep it private, they could have, but they didn't. Another issue that I'm sure is involved is that these situations can become awkward and uncomfortable when they involve people you see regularly and/or friends. However, if you see your friend either being wronged or doing something you perceive unethical, what kind of friend are you if you don't try to help them either recoup what is rightfully theirs or to see the error in their actions? Finally, there is another reason I think that people might not speak out in certain situations. This has to do with social awkwardness/fear and the range of personalities that can be involved in poker disputes. I can easily imagine a situation where a more well known player, who is more popular and more socially confident, is taking advantage of a quieter, less assertive and less well known player. Its totally understandable that both the player being wronged and other players around the situation, who naturally want social approval and acceptance, would be less likely to challenge the more popular player and that said player would be more likely to get away with unethical dealings. However these situations would be so much easier to deal with and so much less socially intimidating if more people felt a mutual responsibility to speak out. There is strength in numbers and the less we feel alone in situations like this, the better off we will all be. The more we have the courage to collectively take strong stances against unethical behavior, we set an example for the broader community and increase the willingness of others to do the same. The idea that we only have responsibilities in situations we are directly involved in is overly individualistic in my opinion. Based on principles like "the duty to rescue", I think that as members of a community (this case the poker community) we have responsibilities towards one another that extend beyond the basic questions of "how can I directly benefit or be harmed by this situation". If someone has the ability to help another person who is clearly being wronged without seriously endangering themselves, I think it's their duty to do so. If people saw Player B steal chips from Player A's stack or steal money out of Player B's backpack, they have a responsibility to expose and try to correct that wrongdoing. This seems obvious and basic but I would extend this idea to less clearcut issues like when people handle bets, stakes and loan repayment unethically. It is essential that we raise the ethical standards by which we conduct business with each other for everyone's sake and for the sake of the community overall. The system that we are all a part of is ultimately only as good as we make it. If you are around a situation that you think is unjust, its not just your right to speak out against it, its your responsibility. For the sake of the community, for the sake of your own future interactions, just because it's the right thing to do, invest a small amount of effort to help promote a system that encourages good behavior instead of bad behavior.