60k "Staking" dispute

[jomatty]

is anyone else not at all surprised that the deal where op does nothing and is paid back by reddragon and bj did not happen? seemed very unlikely that he would get any money back that way.

for those who say they would never settle for 30k you guys are nuts. 30k is 30k better than nothing and if it is not clear that the op is gonna end up with nothing then...i dont know what to say.

for those of you that want to take legal action, good luck but that seems beyond ridiculous. what jurisdiction would touch an online poker transfer without any contract or anything. not only that but on a technical basis bj is prob in the right. on a doing the right thing, acting honorably, and intentionally misleading someone he is dead wrong, but even if you could get this heard in a court somewhere i dont see any judge awarding 60k.

bj defensiveness is really gross as well. even if he didnt intend to mislead the op, which seems very unlikely, surely he could admit that the things he said and the way he said it made things unclear and at least show he has a conscious and admit he worded things poorly. he cant even do that, he just says "keep shipping money and we will see what happens"

every time he says its not my fault i wonder if he is still scamming or delusional (im not saying the op is without blame)

[El Diablo]

All,

Here's how I see it:

A: Boosted asks for loan, Filth loans him 30k.

B: Boosted supposedly borrows another 10k from someone else. He runs that combined 40k down to 25k.

C: Boosted then asks for 10k from filth to pay back that guy and get staked by Filth instead of having these loans. Filth sends him another 10k, which Boosted uses to pay back dude in B. After this transaction, Filth has given Boosted 40k and Boosted has 25k in his account. They agree that this is now a 40k stake and they will split profits 50/50, but there is potentially confusion about terms of makeup and payback of original stake.

E: Boosted asks for another 20k to play more tables, Filth sends him 20k more.

F: Boosted loses it all, asks Filth for more money if Filth wants a chance at getting his money back. This thread happens.

The shady parts of this whole episode are the following:

1) This salesmanship job:

"boosted: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
boosted: that way it's 100% no loss for you"

"boosted: just to finalize details
boosted: you sent me 40
boosted: but my account started with 25
boosted: when you started taking action
boosted: obv if you break even
boosted: until I get my money back
boosted: you'll get 40 back
boosted: not 25
boosted: you understand?"

2) Possibly multiple overlapping staking/loaning/selling action deals across various limits.

3) Statements like this from Boosted in defense of himself that appear to be completely false: "No, there were minutes between the original $30k and the second $30k"

4) Statements like this from Boosted where he basically threatens to break his deal if he thinks the guy is being a dick: "If you want to get nasty, you have no shot at getting any money you're under the dillusion of me owing to you."

5) Boosted agrees to grind at low limits on RedDragon's stake and then have RedDragon split first 60k in profits w/ OP. Then, after a little consideration about the ramifications of grinding for $60k while retaining zero profits, that deal is suddenly null and void.

All in all, the biggest issue here seems simply to be the fact that Boosted portrayed this as a very safe staking arrangement instead of what it really was, an insanely high variance shot at very big limits with huge chance of busto. But, even though I feel like Boosted conducted himself in a shady manner through parts of this, at the end of the day the responsibilty for knowing what he's getting into falls on OP. OP was given an offer that was too good to be true (super low-risk investment with chance to win huge money at nosebleed stakes) and instead of questioning it, jumped right in to gamboooool away.

[jomatty]

what about the 10k that bj used to pay off his other staker? is he planning on at least paying that back or am i missing something in the arrangement?

[TheRedDragon]

[ QUOTE ]
is anyone else not at all surprised that the deal where op does nothing and is paid back by reddragon and bj did not happen? seemed very unlikely that he would get any money back that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very surprised. Given his previous statements, I thought that Filth would be grateful for my offer to take the stake. That turned out not to be the case, so I've chosen to withdraw from the arrangement. He would, in all likelihood, have gotten $30k back fairly quickly under the arrangement with me. That option having been rejected, I hope for his sake as well as Boosted's that this situation gets cleared up some other way.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Boosted agrees to grind at low limits on RedDragon's stake and then have RedDragon split first 60k in profits w/ OP. Then, after a little consideration about the ramifications of grinding for $60k while retaining zero profits, that deal is suddenly null and void.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is the kind of statement which I predicted and refuted ahead of time. I made this offer to both parties, and both parties accepeted. Filth, not Boosted, then tried to negotiate separate terms more favorable to him after he had already entered into an agreement with me.

Given that, I decided I wasn't any longer interested in any kind of business arrangement with Filth, particularly involving a large sum of money. I don't know him very well, but I had trusted that he would act in good faith. When he failed to do this, I decided to withdraw from the arrangement.

No hard feelings, but I simply won't deal with someone who makes an agreement and then tries to negotiate more favorable terms elsewhere without consulting me. It has nothing at all to do with how "hard" grinding would be for Boosted.

-Neutrality

[pepeman]

Wow, I thought Boosted was a respected person before reading this thread.

[jsnipes28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose for a minute that things had gone the other way and Boosted had won $200,000. Thereafter, he paid OP back $60,000 and kept the profits. Outraged, OP came to the HSNL forum and posted a thread with the conversation referenced a billion times on this thread. Would it not be crystal-clear to you that Boosted owed OP half the profits, from the contents of that conversation? Assuming that this would be clear (which undoubtedly it should be), how, as a matter of logic, can it be treated as a stake given a win and as a loan given a loss? This serves to illustrate how grossly unfair a number of people on this thread have been to Boosted, and honestly it's sad on a lot of levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then he would owe the 30k loan, and half the 200k profit, so 130k overall. Although its likely boosted would have called the staking deal to an end before he reached such a huge profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neutrality-

I think your posts in this thread have been very well reasoned. I was hoping that you could comment on the above bolded text.

[TheRedDragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Neutrality-

I think your posts in this thread have been very well reasoned. I was hoping that you could comment on the above bolded text.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Then he would owe the 30k loan, and half the 200k profit, so 130k overall. Although its likely boosted would have called the staking deal to an end before he reached such a huge profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm of the opinion that the original 30k loan was folded into the staking arrangement. Given that, I think Boosted would owe the original $60,000 plus half of the $200,000 profit, for a total of $160k. Because this is fairly clear to me, I don't see a case for Boosted owing money in the event of a loss.

Your position is a reasonable one should you interpret the agreement to have started a new stake which did not include the original $30k. The second (more lengthy) conversation posted between OP and Boosted leads me to conclude that the second 30k transferred was of the same sort as the first 30k. While time elapsed between these transfers, no new agreement (to my recollection) was made. The case that the second 30k was given in a separate transaction from the first seems a bit flimsy to me. Accordingly, I don't think Boosted owes anything but makeup.

-Neutrality

[El Diablo]

Snipes,

He is simply saying that if Boosted lost, then Filth would be out the money and would have to continue the staking arrangement and give Boosted more money to have a shot at getting paid back. But if Boosted won, he would pay Filth back and end the staking arrangement. You know, unlimited downside for Filth with limited, capped upside. Boosted is good at finding people to make deals with, I guess.

[El Diablo]

All,

To sum things up:

"me: sounds like a win win situation for both of us
boosted: I think so"

[TheRedDragon]

Diablo-

There certainly is a limit to the losses. Any time Filth chooses, he can cut his losses and end the stake. The deal would be a very bad one for Filth if Boosted weren't a solidly winning player. Given that he is, and given that Filth has the resources and inclination to stand the volitility inherent in such an investment, the arrangement does carry a positive expection for both parties.

Moreover, whether or not you consider the deal "fair" or profitable for Filth, the point persists that he did in fact agree to it. Our considerations about it equitability are therefore of very little consequence.

-Neutrality