60k "Staking" dispute

[Poker monkey]

[ QUOTE ]

fantastic, what would you like to bet on this and which hsnl player would you like to act as escrow?

[/ QUOTE ]I would bet a lot, but I'd be stupid to put money up because I can't prove that you didn't, just as you can't prove you did.

[Jackal69]

name a number above $1000 and i think it would be pretty easy to prove...

also pm if you are remotely serious as i am currently setting all morons to ignore and you are derailing the thread.

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

lol u crazy caucasians

[Boosted J]

[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing Jackal. Even though we had our clashes on the tables back in the Party days, you proved to me that someone on 2p2 reading this thread can actually read and grasp a fairly simple logical concept. I can't believe this, I'm totally shocked someone here could understand such an elementary deal. Congratulations, someone get this guy a prize. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]


even if that is true, which it clearly isn't

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and <u>I'll provide</u> makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you


[/ QUOTE ]

what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???

NOWHERE, booosted says he'll provide the makeup not OP therefore boosted owes OP 60k period. btw booosted you are complete scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all assumed under the term "makeup." Filthy really wasn't sure how it worked and it's also his fault that he didn't fully understand the terms he agreed to. Boosted did mislead OP for sure by saying 100% no risk, but regardless Filthy really should have been smarter about what he was getting into. I don't think either of them handled it very well, tbh.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]


even if that is true, which it clearly isn't

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and <u>I'll provide</u> makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you


[/ QUOTE ]

what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???

NOWHERE, booosted says he'll provide the makeup not OP therefore boosted owes OP 60k period. btw booosted you are complete scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all assumed under the term "makeup."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. NOTHING is assumed.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see the DAYS worth of convo about this stake as well. Go ahead, post it, it is very evident you knew it was a stake. Although, I'll be fortunate if you dont proof read it and edit it first. Really a shame my comp doesnt log AIM convos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. Blaming the victim through the use of language meant to lead others into questioning the integrity of OP who was clearly mislead and bamboozled. Nothing more than a vailed ad hominem. And coming from the lying hustler himself no less. There is no way you can turn this around boosted. Wake up and smell the coffee, it's crystal clear in everyone's mind that you conned OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't possibly be "crystal clear" until we've seen the IMs between them other than the 10 lines we saw in OP. For all we know they fleshed things out over the course of the next couple days. Obviously with our evidence Boosted looks really bad in this but we really can't know what happened between them in other chats.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we know that he lied about the transfers as well.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]


even if that is true, which it clearly isn't

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and <u>I'll provide</u> makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you


[/ QUOTE ]

what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???

NOWHERE, booosted says he'll provide the makeup not OP therefore boosted owes OP 60k period. btw booosted you are complete scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all assumed under the term "makeup."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. NOTHING is assumed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be naive.

"what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???"

The term makeup means OP must continue to stake him if he wants his money back if they lost the initial $60k. Of course that's assumed because that's exactly what the term "makeup" implies.

[Jackal69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing Jackal. Even though we had our clashes on the tables back in the Party days, you proved to me that someone on 2p2 reading this thread can actually read and grasp a fairly simple logical concept. I can't believe this, I'm totally shocked someone here could understand such an elementary deal. Congratulations, someone get this guy a prize. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

no probs... btw would you like to stake me on stars 25/50? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

(just kidding)

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]


even if that is true, which it clearly isn't

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and <u>I'll provide</u> makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you


[/ QUOTE ]

what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???

NOWHERE, booosted says he'll provide the makeup not OP therefore boosted owes OP 60k period. btw booosted you are complete scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all assumed under the term "makeup."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. NOTHING is assumed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be naive.

"what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???"

The term makeup means OP must continue to stake him if he wants his money back if they lost the initial $60k. Of course that's assumed because that's exactly what the term "makeup" implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is absolutely clear is that the first 30K was a loan.