Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hollaments are you a fraud

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    ionapaul
    Registered Users Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭ionapaul


    Ste05 wrote: »
    maybe Dagunman will still accept, his whole thing was that Holllla was a fraud and wasn't a Balla at all.
    So if he accepts this and gets someone to escrow before hand, it'll be a way to prove that Holllla is in fact a fraud when he obviously then declines to escrow.

    /clutching at straws
    No, you could be right, escrow itself would prove something here IMHO.


  • Options
    #123
    thenutpeddler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭thenutpeddler


    Ste05 wrote: »
    So if he accepts this and gets someone to escrow before hand, it'll be a way to prove that Holllla is in fact a fraud when he obviously then declines to escrow.

    /clutching at straws


    He'll easily get staked with those odds


  • Options
    #124
    shoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭shoutman


    ionapaul wrote: »
    No, you could be right, escrow itself would prove something here IMHO.

    I don't mind being the escrow.

    €90k :D South America here I come.


  • Options
    #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ionapaul wrote: »
    No, you could be right, escrow itself would prove something here IMHO.

    I was thinking the same. Otherwise I don't get this "call out". John's already admitted Danny is probably a better HU NLHE player than he is (might be misconstruing that point, he says "you'll be getting the best of it") so surely then it just comes down to how much money he actually has.

    Which in and of itself is a pretty daft thing to challenge someone imo.


  • Options
    #126
    thechamp87
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭thechamp87


    lol @ the idea of someone not actually liking chub.

    and im not even going to bother commenting on the terms and conditions. this is clearly a cop out based on these conditions and danny knows this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    robinblinds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 754 ✭✭✭robinblinds


    How about a 50k/40k?


  • Options
    #128
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,959 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    BigCityBanker wrote: »
    So basically Hollaments is declining the challenge ^^

    Looks like John may have been right
    I read that post and he did not say anywhere that he declined.

    He did not infer that he declined either.


  • Options
    #129
    White Knight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭White Knight


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I read that post and he did not say anywhere that he declined.

    He did not infer that he declined either.

    A challenge was set and holla decided to respond with non-negotiable terms - indicates his decline to the inital challenge imo


  • Options
    #130
    adzer86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭adzer86


    ridiculous terms>>> Kop out imo


  • Options
    #131
    roryc
    Registered Users Posts: 9,600 ✭✭✭roryc


    adzer86 wrote: »
    ridiculous terms>>> Kop out imo

    this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,959 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    White Knight wrote: »
    A challenge was set and holla decided to respond with non-negotiable terms - indicates his decline to the inital challenge imo
    He was challenged to wager 30k, he is willing to wager 30k. Thats what is said in the op.


  • Options
    #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    White Knight wrote: »
    A challenge was set and holla decided to respond with non-negotiable terms - indicates his decline to the inital challenge imo

    I don't get this. There was no specific challenge. I'm really not acting as an advocate for Danny here but John threw a general challenge at Danny's feet: "I think you are all talk, lets play a 30k series of HU matches". Danny comes back with his set of criteria for them. The 2/1 thing I don't get tbh but it's up to him and John. Let John come back with a counter offer and see where it goes from there surely?


  • Options
    #134
    Requiem4adream
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,538 ✭✭✭Requiem4adream


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I read that post and he did not say anywhere that he declined.

    He did not infer that he declined either.

    I think the point being inferred is that if you challenge me to a boxing match and i accept, stipulation being you wear flippers and have 1 arm tied behind your back, my 'acceptance' would probably be viewed as the exact opposite!

    2/1 is a big price to offer anyone. He'd have to have a big hatred for money to offer a good player 2/1. Pretty sure he doesnt hate money!


  • Options
    #135
    White Knight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭White Knight


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Let John come back with a counter offer and see where it goes from there surely?

    Totally agree but holla said it was non-negotiable. :confused:


  • Options
    #136
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,850 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I read that post and he did not say anywhere that he declined.

    He did not infer that he declined either.

    It's hardly an acceptance either. Silly terms are the same as declining really.


  • Options
    #137
    thenutpeddler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 345 ✭✭thenutpeddler


    You'd swear he was on dragons den


  • Options
    #138
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,959 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    5starpool wrote: »
    It's hardly an acceptance either. Silly terms are the same as declining really.
    Its silly terms in your opinion. Either way he was challenged to wager 30k and he has offered to wager 30k regardless of the terms. If Dagunman is so sure he doesn't have that dosh, then he should accept the challenge, otherwise he should apologise for the accusations he made in the op. Imo of course.


  • Options
    #139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    White Knight wrote: »
    Totally agree but holla said it was non-negotiable. :confused:

    It's really between him and John though, if they agree to alter those terms then that's that. Surely nothing is really non-negotiable.


  • Options
    #140
    RoundTower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭RoundTower


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's really between him and John though, if they agree to alter those terms then that's that. Surely nothing is really non-negotiable.

    what? he obviously posted it because he doesn't want to play, but doesn't want to say so in as many words.


  • Options
    #141
    ocallagh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,140 ✭✭✭ocallagh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't get this. There was no specific challenge. I'm really not acting as an advocate for Danny here but John threw a general challenge at Danny's feet: "I think you are all talk, lets play a 30k series of HU matches". Danny comes back with his set of criteria for them. The 2/1 thing I don't get tbh but it's up to him and John. Let John come back with a counter offer and see where it goes from there surely?
    I don't agree. Holla's challenge is fundamentally different to the one dagunman posted. For that reason we have to treat them both as entirely separate challenges. Therefore as it stands dagunman has yet to accept Holla's offer and Holla has declined Dagunmans offer.

    To say it's now on dagunman to come back with a counter offer based on Holla's reply is not right. Dagunman should simply refuse Holla's offer (and would be correct to do so) and would be perfectly acceptable for him to say Holla did not accept his challenge


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    RoundTower wrote: »
    what? he obviously posted it because he doesn't want to play, but doesn't want to say so in as many words.

    This.


  • Options
    #143
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,850 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Its silly terms in your opinion. Either way he was challenged to wager 30k and he has offered to wager 30k regardless of the terms. If Dagunman is so sure he doesn't have that dosh, then he should accept the challenge, otherwise he should apologise for the accusations he made in the op. Imo of course.

    From someone whose posts frequently fail to make sense, this is perhaps one of the most senseless of the lot.


  • Options
    #144
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    You all so really pissed me off in the multipliers challenge, feeling the need to hi-jack it sayen you'd take a $30k side bet on you doing it. Then the second theres interest you make up all these conditions and say you wont be doing it for a few months.
    Interesting................


  • Options
    #145
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,959 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    5starpool wrote: »
    From someone whose posts frequently fail to make sense, this is perhaps one of the most senseless of the lot.
    Its not senseless, its fact based. There is no need for your derogatory comments just because you don't like the fact that Holla has met the terms of the op's challenge by offering to wager 30k.


  • Options
    #146
    ocallagh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,140 ✭✭✭ocallagh


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Its not senseless, its fact based. There is no need for your derogatory comments just because you don't like the fact that Holla has met the terms of the op's challenge by offering to wager 30k.
    seriously?


  • Options
    #147
    dagunman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 86 ✭✭dagunman


    all I can do is lol and these t&c. 2/1 is absolute madness.
    I said it before, but if you are legit I am agreeing to play you at your game so how could this be profitable for me. For sure I can play nlh but havnt played it cash in over a year.
    When I posted the initial post, ppl said I was mad not making him play any plo or roe but I wanted to give him no excuses. I stacked a clear edge in his favour all he do was come up with $30k that he claimed he had.
    At 2/1 I'd be looking to stake him myself.
    I didnt want to get personel but when someone tells you there going to dance on your best friends face it becomes v personel.
    I'll agree to all ur conditions bar your 2/1. 30k to 30k


  • Options
    #148
    jimbling
    Registered Users Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭jimbling


    I don't know any of the people involved in this at all, but it's pretty obvious the reply he has given is exactly the type of thing dagunman was getting at.
    dagunman wrote: »
    Then the second theres interest you make up all these conditions and say you wont be doing it for a few months.

    i.e. Oh, I'll accept the challenge no problem, but *enter ridiculous set of stipulations here* have to be met first.
    eagle eye wrote: »
    Its silly terms in your opinion. Either way he was challenged to wager 30k and he has offered to wager 30k regardless of the terms. If Dagunman is so sure he doesn't have that dosh, then he should accept the challenge, otherwise he should apologise for the accusations he made in the op. Imo of course.
    eagle eye wrote: »
    Its not senseless, its fact based. There is no need for your derogatory comments just because you don't like the fact that Holla has met the terms of the op's challenge by offering to wager 30k.


    This is just nuts. So, if Holla stated that he would put up the 30k against 500k of duganmans it would still be accepting the challange?? utter tripe.

    Are you saying the OP had to make it clear that a challange to play heads up for 30k actually means that both players have to put up exactly 30k??
    The OP was not a written contract... it's generally assumed on forums, and especially on a poker forum, that the readers will have a bit of common sense. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #149
    adzer86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭adzer86


    Eagleeye you get an F in business in school?

    rules of offer and accpetance:
    An offer can be made by party A, once a counter offer is made by party B, the original offer made by A is therefore deemed to be rejected and it is now up to party A to accept the counter offer or issure another counter offer


  • Options
    #150
    thedini
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭thedini


    Hollaments and Eagleeye just LOL!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,959 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    adzer86 wrote: »
    Eagleeye you get an F in business in school?

    rules of offer and accpetance:
    An offer can be made by party A, once a counter offer is made by party B, the original offer made by A is therefore deemed to be rejected and it is now up to party A to accept the counter offer or issure another counter offer
    dagunman wrote: »
    You like to portray yourself as a balla with a massive roll, but 2bh I reckon your a fraud and its about time someone exposed you.
    This was said in the op. He has offered to wager 30k, so either he proves the above is true or he should apologise imo.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement