Correct, that's why she is never on today's modern era of live streams...glad to see her blacklisted from the poker community. Using the drunk card? That's such an entitled punk move
Unlike many, I actually met Vanessa....or met her drink that is. I was playing Baccarat during the PSPC in the Bahamas in 2019. I heard a commotion and noted Selbst arguing with a dealer at the blackjack table that was at a right angle to my table.... It appeared that she had lost a series of hands and was upset at something the dealer had done. She had the attention of everyone in the vicinity. Next thing we knew, she threw her drink at the dealer. She mostly missed him; however, my table was collateral damage. We were all sprayed. She then proceeded to quickly walk away from the table, and, in the distance, we could see she was being pursued by men in suits. I don't know what the fallout was, and I didn't see any mention in social media. Which led me to think....was this an unremarkable event for her and, for her, just an otherwise average Tuesday night at the casino? That was the highlight of an otherwise dismal series for me, until I was fortunate enough to play with comedian Norm MacDonald in one of the side tourneys. Funny guy he was. Mean girl she was.
you see her lose HU in a ladies event? go watch it if not. her behavior to a full-blown mega donk new player was beyond disgusting. I can't believe Stars didn't drop her.
That's an incredible story! Wasn't expecting the Norm McDonald mention at the end either. He was one of my favorite comedians, too. RIP to a comedic legend.
probability-wise it's FAR more likely you just witnessed a regular day in her life. just like the CAR panthers owner (a billionaire) who got caught throwing his drink on a fan/fans lately. that's extremely likely not some one off event, these people are just giant assholes.
@@tux1968throws a tantrum and tries to bully every time she doesn't get her way which is at least half the time. Really a POS player and even worse personality
I was in the audience in 2016 watching Jason getting presented with his second bracelet and I remember thinking, this guy is absolutely crushing it. I was actually surprised he didn't win another one.
Took me a second to think about what you were saying as I was at the end of the video and all I saw was Jason but then the video ended and paused on the thumbnail and THERE IT IS! DOUG POLK THERE ON THE LEFT!! 🤣
Boy, if we had to cancel every bet that was made by a drunk person we wouldn't have that many bets left. Vanessa Selbst is a player you loved to hate. She just made it so easy.
So per Vanessa if anyone she's felted came back to her later on and said they were drunk and made a mistake...she would give them their money back. I really wonder the outcome of that conversation.
It was a stupid bet that might not have been paid out if it won. Vanessa had no idea have much you can manipulate your win chances. Rebuy tournaments you just blast until you have a stack. He even lost a heads-up, that just shows Mercier is an honest player. He could have paid him to win. 180 to 1 is obv shit odds untill a world class player bets it and goes hard for it.
Vanessa's $1k buyout offer was ridiculous. The $100k offer was way more reasonable - locking in $100k when he is still 2 bracelets short. Altho 180 to 1 seems insane (and could certainly be disasterous financially) it's almost surely under-priced. Wining 3 bracelets is hard. Doing it in one given year is astronomical, even for a top pro.
It’s intriguing because I honestly think that the only reason jason didn’t let her buy out is because he said in an interview it would take a shockingly low amount of money for him to walk away from poker forever. 5 million is the number I think hr mentioned? If he had all his own action this would have got him damn close.
he pretty much did anyway, he was out for atleast couple of years, now hes back playing abit, but not that much, was playing pineapple for few more years as well. Not a grinder life for sure anymore.
did you finish the video, jason only got to 2 bracelet's that year, so he lost 10,000 to her in this bet. he didn't accept either buyout of 1k or 100k.
Funny Vanessa only wanted to get out of the bet when she thought she might lose. Why didn't she cancel before the tournament series began. She's not special. You make a bad bet and lose then live with it. Don't passive aggressively attack your opponent.
This Vanessa is the Danicrash Patrick of Poker. All fluff and no substance. Every time there’s a video of someone getting owned at a poker table, this lady is featured in it. She’s also insufferable.
If the bet was 1.8M for three bracelets, Vanessa should have offered 600K to back out after Jason winning the first bracelet. No way 100K is a “generous” offer.
Her math was fine. Jason could easily take that $100,000 or $110,000. Not sure if her offer includes his initial $10,000. Then he sells action that he will win 2 more bracelets at 18 to 1 or higher. Which he would have been able to do easy. We know this because she was selling action at 25 to 1 as a hedge.
wow, can't believe i didn't hear about this for over 7 years, so she tried to welch, offered a completely ridiculous buyout (THAT part sounds like she was drunk for sure) of 1 dime, the very next day 100 dimes, and AFTER that asks mercier for MORE action if he wants it as to that year's bracelets; o k. in what world would somebody doing this expect to get more action EVER again.
oh, and i never was one of those people that thought badly of v.selbst before just seeing this here. am for sure now, based just on this (and this above isn't some hearsay situation either). welcher's are a little step above cheaters in the gambling world (for me), ethically. techically she didn't welch since he never won 3 bracelet's that year but sure was trying to in advance.
so u mean to tell me she feels the privelege of acting like she deserves to get whatever she wants after the fact? No, really??? I wonder where she got that brainwashed into her head?
This clown was trying to get on record that she was drunk when she entered into the contract in her attempt to nullify it. She's an attorney. She knew what she was doing.
Any tournament I'm watching and when Vanessa is on and I hear her voice it reminds me way to much of the teachers nails and the chalkboard. She accused a player once of talking to much yet she rambled on and on and on. I don't think she needs to shut up and take a breath.
I would still have empathy towards the other person if they came to me offering buy out. Especially because she approached him before he played in any event asking.
Legally? Probably nothing. But she would basically get blackballed from the poker/gambling community of degenerates that she would ever want to sell action, bet with, play high stakes cash with. No more invites from your friends to private poker games with the whales, etc
Honestly though she made a good bet, easily probably over 1000-1 to bink 3 braclets in one summer. Plus she offered 100k buyout, yea im taking the 100k, someone whonis already giving u a hard time about the bet probably eont pay you if u win. Take the 100k.
nothing, she made 10,000 as he never won 3 bracelet's that year. the controversy is that she was trying to welch before the stipulations of the bet had finished. the only thing worse in poker/gambling than being a welch, where your word is worth nothing, is being a cheater.
as much as hellmuth deserves to be hated, never once heard of him being a welcher on bets, and he comes from the 80's back when doing that might get you a LOT worse than being caught welching now might.
a good ten to one payoff, but 180 to one is far better I think basically it was prompting him to play every possible event so he won in either case because of cashes
From a purely mathematics standpoint, he should have taken the 100k after 1 bracelet. He was still more than 500-1 to win 2 more. Even after the 2nd bracelet he was better off mathematically to take the 100k. I understand him not wanting to take the buyout.. but he lied when he said it didn't make sense to take it.
@@jimsty7550 the math is the math... it's almost impossible to win 3 bracelets in 1 WSOP.... hell winning 1 is probably over 1000-1. He knows that... so, his statement was disenginious.
@@MrZola1234 some of the mixed games tourneys don't even get 500 people in them, even if he had a random chance in those it'd be better than 1 in 1000, and j.mercier is a LOT better than a random player in any event he enters. the 2023 WSOP set a bunch of buy in records, pretty sure PLO hit records for PLO, and even with those, PLO tourneys have a LOT less than NLH's. same for studs, lowball draws etc.
@jasonbatteiger2421 there may be a few under a 1000 entry events, but not many, and they typically have unlimited reentry.. after 1 win he was still thousands to 1 to win 3.... he just didn't want to let her out of the bet, because his cash at risk was so low... but her offer was extremely good for him.
yea I didnt quite understand why he didnt take the 100K or negotiate slightly higher to secure the money. Mayebe his WSOP payouts were messing with his thinking, but a 100K addition is 100K.
Wild that he didn't accept 100k buy out after winning 1 bracelet though tbh that's like 18:1 to win 2 bracelets with the rest of the series. He has to have massive confidence in his game to think he'd be a favourite to win 2 bracelets+ once every 18 years. But tbh maybe he is.
The first rule of gambling is, do not bet with money you can not afford to lose. Selbst is the Helmuth of female poker players. Whines everytime she loses a hand.
mathmatically he should've needed better than 180-1 against to take the bet in the first place, and yes, that same math would say he should've taken the 100 when offered to take a slam dunk 90,000 profit. but probably didn't for same reason people buy a lottery ticket, or bet ever in roulette against a casino or a parlay bet against a bookie, you put in a small amount and dream of the huge score. difference between at least 99% of those in here commenting and j.mercier in 2016 (probably still now too) is that to him 10,000 isn't a lot of money. in every one of these bets mentioned your payout on the backend isn't commensurate to the odds of you winning, thus a bad bet. he clearly found it more valuable to possibly win this bet than just take the 90,000 profit. her fears of having to maybe some small % of the time owe him 2 mil lead to her offering a horrible "here just take this 100,000 (90,000 profit) so i don't have to worry for the next weeks of losing 2 mil to you".
