I just wandered into this thread like a voyeur, like he must be a scuzzy guy for somebody to post it in NVG. But when I read through the posts it didn't scan that way to me. It just doesn't quite add up to the conclusion that the OP came to if you don't know any of the people by name or reputation. And something about the way they are piling on this guy doesn't sit right. I've been bullied enough in my life (3 older brothers, you do the math) to see it when it's happening. This all smells a little bit of the "community" piling on an outsider or wanna-be on behalf of a member. It isn't that subtle. I voiced an opinion that the "Calgary community" disagrees with and the response is to put me in my place with statements like which I guess is the way they tell me that only a scammer could think that way, so I must be that scammer. Or which is telling me that this topic has already been addressed and deemed to be of no worth on the basis of they said so, so I should shut up about it. Sheesh!

For me, this attack on the Player lost it's legitimacy during the very first post, when the Backer declined the option of an independent arbitrator because one couldn't possibly understand poker, which is obviously far deeper and more complicated than a million dollar contract dispute or untangling a 10 year common law marriage. Granted I myself don't understand many of the underhanded tactic's and behaviors that are deemed acceptable in the poker world. Like, say, booking action that you actually can't pay for and then declaring on the main page of the largest poker forum in the world that that it is YOU that have been scammed and freerolled when the guy you didn't pay actually wins one.

In what world does the part in bold imply anything other then Eric thinks he does not have to send unless Nick Bubbles

To me its clear the he is asking the following in short hand :

''Since you are essentially In the money, I only need to send the 280 if you somehow find a way to bubble right?''

To imply that this message could be interpreted as Eric will send later even if Nick is ITM seems very illogical to me and a bad read on the intentions of the message.

Bobo,

"Both sides handled this poorly" isn't a get out of jail free card. I don't think anyone would deny that Eric should have communicated better, and probably ought to have sent the money after he didn't get a response or at least followed up on his message.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the action was booked and this a clear scam attempt by Nick.

Relooking at what I posted, I think you have a good point. I still think that wording was another example of the sloppy way in which it was handled, but in the context of buying and selling pieces, you're probably right. Of course that still doesn't excuse not sending the money when he doesn't hear anything back.

No, it's not a get out of jail free card - for either of them. I disagree that the action is necessarily booked - he said he would send the money, he never received any communication that he shouldn't, and yet he didn't.

As for it being a clear scam attempt, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Looking at the facts alone and not factoring in reputations at all, I can see more than one potential outcome here, especially when there's no way to be certain of intent. If you have information on reputations that convinces you of intent, fair enough. Without that, I really can't see how outside parties can be convinced anyone was scamming anyone else.

As someone in Calgary, I will definitely never do any business with Nick

We can discuss this but Wasy just won the $600 Venetian for 85k.. Ironically the HU was worth 15k...

Karma?

I would have no problem doing business with either of them - I would just be more clear on the rules of the deal and what needed to happen for action to be booked.