Terrence Chan in Twitter fight with Mike "Timex" McDonald over Pokershares bet

[Dan Druff]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843663934124035

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843668447121410

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843670359777280

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843676856705027

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843679444619266

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843699124338688

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/13588437011459195090

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843703243071488

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843705201893376

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/tchanpoker/status/1358843706363703297

[Dan Druff]

Chinamaniac's resposne:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/chinamaniac/status/1358869896684265481

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/chinamaniac/status/1358898285965152256




Dan Colman's response, which Mike McDonald then answered:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/MikeMcDonald89/status/1358862667935412225



Mike added this, in response to Melissa Burr's take:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/MikeMcDonald89/status/1358891283234758658

[Dan Druff]

Cliffs:

- Landon Tice and Bill Perkins have a 200-400 NL heads up match coming up, with 20k hands, and where Perkins gets spotted 720k (9BB/100)

- Terrence Chan attempted to bet on this match on Mike McDonald's "Pokershares" site, regarding "who will win the heads up challenge". The bet does not mention the 720k Perkins gets back, as part of the terms of the match. The bet is ambiguous, and Chan takes it to mean that it's simply a -109 bet that Tice wins more money than Perkins.

- Pokershares support sends a quick e-mail to Chan indicating clarification, that Tice needs to win by more than 720k for Terrence's bet to win. Terrence cries foul and claims that wasn't stated.

- McDonald contacts Chan directly, without prompting, and starts off with, "are you dumb?", insisting that Chan should have known when he placed the bet that the 720k was part of it.

- The two argue back and forth. Chan accuses McDonald of not honoring his site's bets, even when the amount (780 euro) is relatively small. McDonald is insistent that the bet is about winning the match, not who finishes ahead in heads-up money, and that the 720k is part of the match. McDonald is also angry that Chan is trying to angle him, given that they've been friends for a long time.


So who is right?

This one isn't easy, but I'm actually more on McDonald's side here. The HU challenge between Perkins and Tice clearly states that 9BB/100 is part of it, even if the language on Pokershares is part of it. Clearly the winner of that challenge is the one who is ahead AFTER the 720k is deducted.

Furthermore, even if Chan believes he's right, it's still kinda shitty to take advantage of what he believes was a line-setting mistake by his friend's company. I didn't like how Terrence seemed to be saying that he would "play the fuck out of a +EV blackjack game" at a Steve Wynn owned property, even if Wynn were his personal friend.

[BCR]

Put me down for Timex should have ate it and fixed bet terms, but that Chan didn’t just fire max without knowing.

[nightmarefish]

Cliffs:

- Landon Tice and Bill Perkins have a 200-400 NL heads up match coming up, with 20k hands, and where Perkins gets spotted 720k (9BB/100)

- Terrence Chan attempted to bet on this match on Mike McDonald's "Pokershares" site, regarding "who will win the heads up challenge". The bet does not mention the 720k Perkins gets back, as part of the terms of the match. The bet is ambiguous, and Chan takes it to mean that it's simply a -109 bet that Tice wins more money than Perkins.

- Pokershares support sends a quick e-mail to Chan indicating clarification, that Tice needs to win by more than 720k for Terrence's bet to win. Terrence cries foul and claims that wasn't stated.

- McDonald contacts Chan directly, without prompting, and starts off with, "are you dumb?", insisting that Chan should have known when he placed the bet that the 720k was part of it.

- The two argue back and forth. Chan accuses McDonald of not honoring his site's bets, even when the amount (780 euro) is relatively small. McDonald is insistent that the bet is about winning the match, not who finishes ahead in heads-up money, and that the 720k is part of the match. McDonald is also angry that Chan is trying to angle him, given that they've been friends for a long time.


So who is right?

This one isn't easy, but I'm actually more on McDonald's side here. The HU challenge between Perkins and Tice clearly states that 9BB/100 is part of it, even if the language on Pokershares is part of it. Clearly the winner of that challenge is the one who is ahead AFTER the 720k is deducted.

Furthermore, even if Chan believes he's right, it's still kinda shitty to take advantage of what he believes was a line-setting mistake by his friend's company. I didn't like how Terrence seemed to be saying that he would "play the fuck out of a +EV blackjack game" at a Steve Wynn owned property, even if Wynn were his personal friend.

What about the people out there that just fired on it without knowing that Perkins is the dog? People fire on shit all the time just for the action. Of course this doesn't include Terrence but there could be others just gambling.

[IamGreek]

Stay tuned for the MacDonald vs Chan HU for rollz coming to a twitch channel near you soon.

[MrTickle]

Stay tuned for the MacDonald vs Chan HU for rollz coming to a twitch channel near you soon.

Half HUNL half MMA?

[Dan Druff]

Put me down for Timex should have ate it and fixed bet terms, but that Chan didn’t just fire max without knowing.

I am starting to go this way, as well.

China did bring up a good point that people may bet on this without knowing anything about the terms of the Tice/Perkins challenge. They may simply know that Tice is a pro and Perkins is a rec, and bet on Tice. Then they'll get the bad news afterwards, which isn't fair.

While Pokershares clearly caught the mistake and clarified (and gave bettors the opportunity to cancel it), what if the person wasn't around to get the e-mail? Seems like Pokershares should just eat smallish bets on this, due to the ambiguity, and then fix it.

However, Terrence 100% was angling here, and if he has any kind of relationship with McDonald, that's not a good look.

On the flip side, LOL at Timex denying in chat that it was a mistake. Clearly it was, or they wouldn't have panicked and send a clarification by e-mail so quickly.

[BCR]

Put me down for Timex should have ate it and fixed bet terms, but that Chan didn’t just fire max without knowing.

I am starting to go this way, as well.

China did bring up a good point that people may bet on this without knowing anything about the terms of the Tice/Perkins challenge. They may simply know that Tice is a pro and Perkins is a rec, and bet on Tice. Then they'll get the bad news afterwards, which isn't fair.

While Pokershares clearly caught the mistake and clarified (and gave bettors the opportunity to cancel it), what if the person wasn't around to get the e-mail? Seems like Pokershares should just eat smallish bets on this, due to the ambiguity, and then fix it.

However, Terrence 100% was angling here, and if he has any kind of relationship with McDonald, that's not a good look.

On the flip side, LOL at Timex denying in chat that it was a mistake. Clearly it was, or they wouldn't have panicked and clarified it in e-mail so quickly.

Ya, the I fired the max and then fired the max again a few more times wasn’t believable. I moved my post to keep flow of thread better.

[Dan Druff]

This whole thing kinda brings up the ethics of taking advantage of a mistake or oversight in gambling.

Casinos are cold corporations set up to take your money. They have all kinds of mechanisms in place to make that happen, many of them subtle (no clocks and no windows to keep you from realizing how much time you're spending there, serving free drinks to inhibit your decision-making, etc). When I walk into a casino, I'm fully aware they don't care about my well-being, and would like to take every penny from me if possible. Therefore, if I can find a mistake in their offerings which makes it +EV on my side, I'm going to take that shot. I don't owe them exclusive play at -EV games, just like they don't owe me any personal concern about my financial well-being (aside from the very weak responsible gaming measures, required by law). It's a business transaction either way, and I see it as a competition that I will seek to win in any way except cheating.

However, I feel that gambling against friends is a different story. For example, let's say a friend said to me, "Hey, I heard you like blackjack. You know what would be fun? How about I act as the dealer and you the player, and we play some blackjack for real money?" I'd be a dick if I did this without first warning him that I can count cards, and that I'd be +EV against him.

I don't know why Terrence doesn't see that it looks like he was trying to take advantage of his friend's company's mistaken lines, and he shouldn't have been doing that.

[jsearles22]

Terms of a bet have to be super clear or someone will always try to wriggle out of it.