60k "Staking" dispute

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyword, WAS.

[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 ]

just wanted to quote this again so everybody can read it because it's so dead on and explained perfectly.

[NLSoldier]

I think a lot of people in this thread are falling far to strongly on one side or the other.

I think there is almost 0 chance boosted went into this looking to deliberately scam filth, and likewise there is a 0 chance filth went into this knowing exactly what boosted thought the deal was and is now just trying to get his money back even though he doesnt think he is owed it.

seems like a far more likely case is that boosted did what he needed to do to stay afloat, which meant misleading OP, but his intentions were probably not bad in his mind because he thought he would win and pay the money back and it would be no big deal. OP obviously thought boosted would win too, and he saw the deal as too good to be true.

boosted losing was obviously never part of the plan for either party, but now that he lost it looks like boosted is reverting to a technicality to get out of paying the money, which in his mind he thought he would never owe, due to the way he worded the deal, but he probably knew on some level that OP would think he was owed it.

[AragornX151]

So I don't play nearly this high, but a close friend and I (not an efriend, one of my best pals) were talking about this a lot lately, and I wanted to chime in here...I first wanted to ask, though:

Do the regulars here who do the staking thing regularly always do it on a "my word is golden" basis? Because even with one of my closest friends (we're like brothers), I'd want any kind of substantial staking deal to be in full writing, and he would too, including ALL terms.

As an example, I would be willing to stake him to a 5-5 PL Omaha game in the future, as he has a big overlay in that game. It's a +ev move for both sides. However, in the interest of making sure that everything is done without any confusion, we'd want to discuss all aspects ahead of time; the buy-ins I'm comfortable with him using, the strategy (short-stack, deepstack), and to what length of time the stake is for. Then he could play stress-free (I.E. not changing strategies playing with "someone else's $" as much), and I would feel comfortable with my investment, no matter which way it ultimately turns out...at least it would be ethically strong.

These things are not about just trust; I know he'd never screw me over. But it's easy to mistake a term here or there that can lead to serious misunderstandings. There's no reason not to have a contract when this amount of money is at stake, and I'd have one of my friends who's a lawyer look it over to make sure everything is kosher. That would eliminate any chance of mixups. Does anyone here do this, or at least put it in writing in some form? I mean, staking is such a thin line.

Also, it would be pretty easy to uphold online as the sites can send you hand histories for the player from the date of the stake onward. I assume the sites would be willing to comply with this if agreed to by both parties ahead of time...doesn't this seem like a surefire way to eliminate these kinds of problems with online staking? It would present issues if someone is being staked by multiple people at once, I suppose, but other than that...anyway, at the least, terms of these kinds of agreements should be in writing, like they are for all other forms of serious money exchanges.

In this case, I don't think the IM logs are sufficient enough to prove anything in court. Everything is so hazily outlined, and both sides deserve blame for various aspects. IMO, Boosted's actions are extremely unethical (it's clear that OP is not aware of what he's getting himself into, and Boosted does nothing to alleviate that confusion) but not illegal. OP deserves some serious blame for agreeing to such hazily agreed terms, and while it sure seems to me that he was taken advantage of to some level, you have to be very careful when shipping someone 60K...

[HP]

[ 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 and BJ provides an unlimited number of make up hands, 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 ]

just wanted to quote this again so everybody can read it because it's so dead on and explained perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't get how you were only planning on 40k hands of make up

[DoGGz]

You gonna get BOOOOOOSTED

[SlowHabit]

"Pay the man his moniiieeeesssss"

[Admo]

[TheRedDragon]

Yes, that arrangement is now finished, from my perspective. After it was agreed upon, OP offered a separate arrangement to Boosted without consulting me. When you make an agreement with two parties, you don't try to go behind one's back and seek other terms with the third party. He's also said that he'd rather someone else pick up the stake, and a number of you have said that there's something shady/inappropriate about me taking the stake.

So you win; I'm quite through being a part of this. If anyone else should care to pick up the stake, they can take the matter up with Boosted and Filth independently. My intentions were to resolve this issue in a manner mutually acceptable to Boosted and Filth. I have no interest in having my reputation tarnished by insinuations that I've attempted in some way to take advantage of Filth by taking part in the stake. Certain posters who have conducted themselves like rabid animals for the enitrety of this thread (e.g. bkholdem) will likely contrive some way in which this also must "prove" Boosted (and, by extension, I) guilty of some wrongdoing. My hope and expectation is that such accusations will be lent precisely as much credence as they deserve: none.

With respect to the rest of the thread, I find the points I made yesterday to have been wholly unrefuted. The sheer volume of posts (most of which repeat each other almost word-for-word) on this thread is ghastly, and accordingly I'm quite certain I haven't the time to sift through it (let alone respond to salient points made therein), given that it continues to grow at anything approximating the present rate.

A multitude of people in this thread have, for reasons passing understanding, infantilized OP to the point where, beyond the occasional "OMG how didn't you clear things up more?", they ascibe him virtually NO responsibility in failing to clarify the terms of the arrangement. For those of you who are vehemently anti-Boosted, let's set up a little hypothetical.

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.

All of that being said, I'll likely bow out of this thread before too long, as reasoning with people who have made up their minds and expressed themselves in such vehement fashion is largely unproductive. A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject; many on this thread fit the description to a tee.

-Neutrality

[SlowHabit]

[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]
Admo,

You got game.