60k "Staking" dispute

[TylerD]

I want to know if Boosted has been taking "staking" tips from his good friend Mike Matusow or if this is a Boosted J original?

[bruce18lee]

I've read through most of the thread and I'm not sure this has been pointed out...if I am misunderstanding something or if this has been addressed I'm sorry.

BoostedJ has made it very clear that he had 60k in the account after the transfers from TheFilth. So he loses this amount in the 75-150 game and this is where the arguments begin. I'm under the impression that he stopped playing in this game after losing the 60k, and though he has played since this incident, it was no longer under whatever arrangement he thought he had w/ TheFilth. But he says that he sold off half his action. Even if you take the position that both parties agreed to make this a 60k stake, hasn't TheFilth technically only lost 30k? From what I gathered through the thread, it doesn't sound like the person that had the other half of BoostedJ's action in that game transferred more money and that he proceeded to lose another 60k, which would be necessary to make TheFilth's half of the action add up to -60k. Basically, he needs to have lost 120k in the game for TheFilth (assuming that their arrangement is a stake, which is debatable) to be down 60k. But it sounds like BoostedJ stopped playing after he was down 60k total in the game.

[apefish]

Deleted until I reread exactly what point you are making. I don't think there is any dispute about 60K in makeup being the minimum Boosted owes. In fact that has been precisely Boosted's position all along.
OP has offered a simple 30K buyout of any obligations but not because that is the loss.

[apefish]

Okay reread it and I am not in the frame of mind to reread the entire thread and figure out where cross staking may rear its head. I think the fact that Filth has 60K in emails from Full Tilt and has zero dollars returned from Boosted shows that technically and any other way imagineable he is out a real 60K not a theoretical anything else at this point.
Whether a cross stake or sell off actually happened I missed that or it's a misread- but everyone is operating on the 60K sum in one way or another, including both main parties.

[Post-Oak]

Filth and Boosted,

You guys should agree to choose one or more respected posters as arbitrators.

If a couple of knowledgeable posters dedicate some time, they should be able to disentangle the many side deals/transactions and arrive at a solution.

Also, as others have pointed out (and been ignored), I am confused as to what happened to the $10K of Filth's money that Boosted used to pay one of his creditors. That money was not lost playing poker.

[Victor]

wow, this is a gross thread. i think boosted should find a way pay filth 60k since it was a "100% no loss" deal.

[jomatty]

yeah this is the third time im trying to figure out what happened to the 10k as well. my guess is that boosted will simply say, that even though he specifically needed to "get these guys off his back" he somehow reloaded the account to the original staking amount. it would take ft records to convince me of that and bj is just not gonna let el D dig around, although it makes perfect sense and would clear up a lot.

[warbler]

I think the problem is that when someone tells you it's 100% no loss to you thats a guarantee. If one's money is guarenteed how can it not be paid back.

If the overwheling weight of opionon is that such guarentee's can be given out and then not honored(even if that's by means of a loop hole such as this staking-top-up-thingy) then that severly injures the value of any such guarentees.

Basicly I think that you should not tell people their money is 100% gaurenteed when it's not and in this case, playing at a high RiskOfRuin it was very f**king far from OK.

Even if the the whole staking top up thing is a legit loop hole (which I don't think it is) then the borrower should still pay back the money as he mislead (weather knowingly or through negligence[not explaining the conditional aspect of "100% no loss for you"])the lender who obviosly only agreed to it due the "100%" guarentee

And for what it's worth you should not lend out such sums to unknowns with too good to be true deals

[dodgybob]

My rep is worth more than 60k to me and I don't play HS. If you have the money outside poker pay him back. If you had acted legit all along this thread never would've started.

[BigMac1082]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read through most of the thread and I'm not sure this has been pointed out...if I am misunderstanding something or if this has been addressed I'm sorry.

BoostedJ has made it very clear that he had 60k in the account after the transfers from TheFilth. So he loses this amount in the 75-150 game and this is where the arguments begin. I'm under the impression that he stopped playing in this game after losing the 60k, and though he has played since this incident, it was no longer under whatever arrangement he thought he had w/ TheFilth. But he says that he sold off half his action. Even if you take the position that both parties agreed to make this a 60k stake, hasn't TheFilth technically only lost 30k? From what I gathered through the thread, it doesn't sound like the person that had the other half of BoostedJ's action in that game transferred more money and that he proceeded to lose another 60k, which would be necessary to make TheFilth's half of the action add up to -60k. Basically, he needs to have lost 120k in the game for TheFilth (assuming that their arrangement is a stake, which is debatable) to be down 60k. But it sounds like BoostedJ stopped playing after he was down 60k total in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree with at least the first part of this. Since he lost the 60K in his account, there should also be a transfer from the guy he sold action to for 50% (30K). SHOW US THE TRANSACTION.