Jungleman on Durrrr Challenge and Viffer Disagreement

Published on 25 September 2013 by Pokerlistings 5674
Dan "Jungleman" Cates is at the PokerListings.com Battle of Malta and we caught him on video to find out more about the ongoing Durrrr Challenge. According to Cates he's got a new agreement with Tom Dwan that will see 4,000 hands played this month, and a quick resolution to the entire challenge. Cates goes on to talk about the disagreements he's had with David "Viffer" Peat and what he's going to do about it.
Regarding the Durrrr Challenge, we've actually come to an agreement, but we're going to wait until we get some hands in. We should actually play. . . I think that there is a pretty good chance to play 4,000 hands out this month. I feel like I've said that like a million times, but this time I'm more sure than usual. Now I'm like 25% sure. I actually do think, based on our new agreement, he's got quite a bit of incentive to play. Right now, he doesn't want to disclose the deal until we have actually played some hands. If he doesn't play hands this September, I'm just probably going to have to tell people what the deal is because it's just like another lack of commitment that he's shown again.

He's got a lot of options of people who he could play. He can play. . . in the Macau games, he gets into the good games in Macau, which are the high stakes against people who are businessmen. So why would he want to play with me? The guy who just sits on his computer and grinds and plays the top players that will actually give action. I see why he wouldn't play. He actually said in the forum, why would he play me when I've irritated him a couple of times, and he can play all these other games? Although, I think doing that it's against the spirit of the bet, I think. I think even he even recognizes it, and I think that he actually does want to make things right.

I assume that there is some reluctance. He seems to think he can beat me. I am convinced that he cannot, personally, but who knows? I guess I can't see the future. I've asked him if he wants to settle. I would be fine with taking a settlement. I kind of like him. I don't really want to bash him that much. He's been nice to me, but he doesn't want to settle. From what I can tell, he intends to play, but I'm not 100% sure. Part of me thinks that he might be just leading me on to buy time or whatever, especially with the agreement we have now. I think that he almost has to play or he is being really shady because with the agreement we have now, I will make money, regardless.

I have some faith, but I have some doubts as well at how long [inaudible 00:02:40]. I'm not 100% sure, especially with his situation being as mysterious and complicated as it is. I think there's a good chance, but I'm not 100% sure in the situation. There are some chances that I'll just get completely screwed over for millions or whatever, but I think that's unlikely.

Yeah, my competitive drive has a lot to do with it. It's very good for me just career-wise, just to play the challenge. I make lots of money from it. It's good for my name or whatever. There is just all kinds of incentives of why I want to complete it, and for why I want to push for it. There is actually something I read recently. It's very interesting. It explains some of the behaviors that have occurred around this challenge. In particular, when faced with a sure thing instead of a gamble, you almost always take the sure thing, which isn't that relevant. But the other thing where if there is a gamble instead of a sure loss, people almost always take the gamble even though, rationally, the equity of those two things is exactly the same, people will almost always take the gamble, which explains his behavior.

It also explains why he might be stalling because he is gambling and like what people will think, and the sure thing is that he loses a ton money. So his behavior makes sense. He's got nothing to gain from this challenge at this point unless he beats me, which he even thinks is unlikely. He just has a lot of stuff to lose. The only thing that he has to keep is what people think of him.

Well, with Biffer [SP] almost immediately following a challenge, I was stuck with a little bit of money, and I wanted to bet more in it, as did my friend, "You're not in danger," Scott Palmer. He wanted to bet some money on it. He had no money on that at the time. Biffer was making posts on [inaudible 00:04:46]. He wanted to bet big on Tom, and Scott wanted to bet everything. So I booked a bet with Biffer. I booked 20% cross-book and then a 50K side bet. My 50K to his 62.5K, and then I gave 10% of that cross-book to Scott. Unfortunately, I didn't really handle that well because Durrrr was letting me better odds. So, we booked that bet. He said, "We have 10 days to pay," whatever, and then recently right after, sometimes around the time in Vegas, I was playing like this 2K, 4K game, and Biffer had a piece because he had business with other guys that I had business with.

I was paying him my piece, and he was like, "By the way, I'm not paying you for the Durrrr Challenge," the hundreds of thousands he's about to owe after I paid him like 160,000 for his piece, and I told him, "Well, then you're scamming me," and he's like, "No, I'm fucking you." That's his language. He's saying, "The DOJ [SP] was like an act of God, it's kind of like in the baseball inning where there is a thunderstorm or whatever and the baseball game is cancelled, so it's all just a wash." And I'm like, "Tom says it's still on. Tom still wants to play. You still owe the cross-book regardless of this fucking thunderstorm or whatever you want to call it," and he won't agree with me. And he was like, "I'll bet you on it. I'll bet you on it."

We bet with Haralabos [SP] on who's right. Almost immediately after we both say our agreements, he just gives me the bet says, "You're out of line, Biffer." Haralabos Voulgaris, and then I try to get him to settle or whatever, and he just won't settle. I try to deal with it over the World Series of Poker, and then he gets really annoyed and says we want to deal with later, then eventually agrees, "Okay, fine, we've got action." He texts me that, and he says, "I hope you lose a lot of money." I have the text. And then, recently, he goes on the Two Plus Two Forum, and he posts his argument about act of God and whatever this nonsense is, and everyone just disagrees with him. Everyone says what he is saying makes no sense, and he doesn't really have an argument. And he won't listen to anyone, basically. And he is claiming we don't have action.

I posted the text message, "Hey, this is you texting me. We have action, even regardless of what you just said," and then he says, "Well, I can fake a text message, too. Here is me saying you cheated people and killed babies," or whatever. He doesn't acknowledge that bet. So, at this point, I just think he must be trying to angle me because no rational person acts like this. Basically, I think Biffer is a total scumbag. That's what I think. I think he's trying to angle me. I think that dealing with him like a rational person is not the way to go, and I think that no one should ever do business with him. I assume, basically, the way to go is ruin his business reputation forever so that he has to pay me so that we can declare things resolved.