60k "Staking" dispute

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
First 30k deal isn't outlined in the posts so nothing can be said about that.

Second 30k deal was 100% guaruntee no losses, weather you pay him in full from your own means or grind it back is of no consequence, it is owed.

Having friends post in your favor is actually against your favor. Looks bad to say "Im not involved and you have no reason to trust me, but trust me, hes good guy".

[/ QUOTE ]


Here he is recognizing the 30K loan at least:

him: and that way
him: I dont feel bad borrowing 30k from you

So now, since he is staked at 30K he can not feel bad about borrowing 30K. Pay up biotch.

Someone else with a sizable roll should offer OP money to get him into makeup where OP takes a % loss out of the 30K stake (rather than the whole 30K lol) assuming he doens't want to play makeup.

[greg nice]

boosted

your integrity is def in question here, as noted in bkholdem's post when he asked "whats in it for you?". im not saying whether you tried to mislead intentionally or not. but, if someone "staked" me, and seemed kinda clueless like OP did, i would be damn sure to spell out what the terms meant. further, if a regular winner staked me, and showed complete ignorance of the fact that im playing pretty much nosebleed with 2 buyins, and had no questions, id again be sure to make clear the arrangement.

what is unquestionable is the fact that you were irresponsible with the money given as "stake"

[cero_z]

[ QUOTE ]
Cero-

Boosted is a VERY reputable HSNL player who has entered into staking arrangements with many satisfied parties (myself among them). He is CERTAINLY not a "scammer"; my hope and expectation is that, despite the misunderstanding, even OP doesn't subscribe to that point of view.

-Neutrality

[/ QUOTE ]

I only read the initial post, so I didn't know it was a player of Boosted's caliber (and presumably, wealth). I have no idea how reputable Boosted is, but I tend to assume someone's word is good until they prove otherwise. I also of course have nothing whatsoever against Boosted or anyone else involved. However, if OP's story is for real, he did get scammed. Boosted takes a flier at 75/150 deep with a 5/10 grinder's money, knowing full well the guy won't be able to go far with the makeup? Gimme a [censored] break. "100% No loss for you"? Wow.

I've been on both sides of staking deals that've gone bad. It feels terrible to lose someone else's money, who had faith in your poker game and in your integrity. It's not really so bad IMO to stake someone and lose, as long as you trust them. But it must be a sick feeling to have your horse lose, and then have to wonder if you got taken.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but wait

[ QUOTE ]

Since Yoguh denied him "makeup," which HE agreed to in the OP, his stake is not responsible for paying him back.

[/ QUOTE ]



how much "makeup" is OP required to give him? unlimited? is OP supposed to keep bankrolling this guy until he eventually gets even?

[/ QUOTE ]

if makeup is agreed to, the staker doesnt have to stake anymore if he doesnt want to, but he can force the stakee to keep playing if he wants him to. In this specific situation, once they got into the positive, there wasn't a real cutoff point and they were just going to end the stake whenever they both agreed to it, the upside was not defined with details, whereas some stakes say "Win $100k and we both cash out"

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very clear he didn't intend to enter into a 'makeup' arrangement:

him: that way it's 100% no loss for you
me: whoa
me: what's in it for you though?


It's clear he see's only upside (as in risk free backing) and you conveniently dodged his question there. If your a friend of his your a scumbag.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like OP would have an extraordinarily strong court case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29

"A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake.

Leading cases on unilateral mistake are Smith v. Hughes [1871] and Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All E.R. 566."

(emphasis mine)

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please stop trying to deceive others. I have it all logged. There was one full day in between the two 30k, not minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're insane if you're all of a sudden going to start arguing this point, I'm done here, since you've disrespected me in many ways, including:

As soon as I told you I lost our stake, one of your first questions was whether I stole it or not. If I stole it, why would you care, because from what you say, I'd have to pay you back anyways? You questioned my character there, and I've never ripped anybody off in my life, nor will I ever.

Second point of disrespect was when you promised me my name wasn't going to be mentioned in the thread, I dont want my name near any sort of controversy, good or bad, it's like the tabloids here.

Usually, people on 2p2 are referred to as "Villian" and you're referred to as "Hero", now, in some cases in hands, you need to know previous stuff and what hero's and villians tendencies are. Therefore, you also took 1/4 of me at 200/400 a few weeks before this, and I gladly paid you your $10k< in winnings. Also, my tendencies are not cheating or scamming anybody, there is 0% chance of that.

If you want to get nasty, you have no shot at getting any money you're under the dillusion of me owing to you. After being disrespected clearly twice in these situations, you're fortunate enough I'm respectable of agreements enough that I will make up the money if you choose so to stake me again at the stakes I lost and I will try to get you out of that hole, even though I reap no benefit of doing so, it was the agreement. Stop trying every single little thing to discredit and tarnish my name, I don't appreciate it one bit.

At this time, I have nothing else to say as I believe I've said all the details I can remember(this was about a week and a half ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear OP didn't know what the hell make up was as evidenced here:

him: stake me and I'll provide makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you
me: whoa
me: what's in it for you though?

(he had already done the 'loan' which is presumably risk free on OP's part so why would he say this if he thought he was taking on risk???)


Here you are recognizing the 30K load pal:

him: and that way
him: I dont feel bad borrowing 30k from you

If it is supposed to be prima facie evidence he entered into a 'makeup' deal since 'everyone knows what makeup is' (i.e. you used the term in your chat so that locks the deal)

then it is even more clear everyone knows what 'loan' is so the same logic applies.

[TheRedDragon]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like OP would have an extraordinarily strong court case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you're ignorant of most of contract law and applicable common law. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Neutrality

[MilkMan]

"They shoulda never gave you [censored] money"

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like OP would have an extraordinarily strong court case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you're ignorant of most of contract law and applicable common law. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Neutrality

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer or anything resembling one, but the fact that OP clearly did not understand the terms of his deal, and that Boosted appears to have tried to take advantage of this by making the "100% no lose" statement strike me as pretty damning evidence.

[KRANTZ]

i think that convo isnt crystal clear that boosted is in the right, but it's clear enough to hold up... but it definitely has an air of shadiness about it for sure

[KRANTZ]

lol reddragon is neutrality, that explains it