Carter "bdybldngpkr" Phillips Walks out on stake, agrees to buyout and doesnt pay (Resolved) - Page 9 - MTT Community

FatalError · 08-10-2011, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodskier

I'm not saying he should be crucified but all drama aside I highly doubt KoC is lying about Carter agreeing to buyout of his makeup for 25k. Hence Carter owes KoC 25k no ifs ands or buts.

IMO it's not that he can't pay the buyout, his reputation basically hinges on whether or not he tried to leverage having a bad series into erasing the debt on the grounds that KoC would have lost about that much staking him.

Zima421 · 08-10-2011, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THAY3R

In this world we live in a democracy and I'm pushing to have a vote where all horses makeups are clear. Who's with me?

[x] Yes

[ ] No

So far Yes is winning 1-0

[ ] Yes

[x] No

All tied up

hoodskier · 08-10-2011, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatalError

IMO it's not that he can't pay the buyout, his reputation basically hinges on whether or not he tried to leverage having a bad series into erasing the debt on the grounds that KoC would have lost about that much staking him.

Well yes of course, had he continued to be staked by KoC he would have of course accrued more makeup assuming he lost money under the stake and therefore still owed money to buy out of the staking agreement (also assuming he is still planning on playing poker).

Octavian_C · 08-10-2011, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P0KERPR033

This is pretty cut and dry. An agreement was made upon the buyout number concerning Carters makeup number. Carter owes Tom 25k and thats that. As far as making a post here regarding the issue I dont see anything wrong with that and if I were in Toms shoes I would do the same. I think Tom could have left out the part about Carters personal issues and Tom can voice his opinion regarding "grinding some smaller tourneys out in vegas before wsop" but ultimately that is completely Carters decision.

This

Now they need to agree when/how payments will be met in the future.

SEABEAST · 08-10-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mement_mori

Sorry to hear about this Tom, while me and Carter had our differences and arguments I always respected him and thought of him as a very trustworthy person, pretty shocked to hear about this. Hope it works out for everyone involved.

this. pretty sure he loves poker more than most of us deep down too. really dumb stuff from him since he will certainly get the bug back in the future.

i remember even just based off his facebook seeing how happy he was when he won those live tourneys and then how tilted he was when he busted out of the next say 8-10 big live tourneys he played, seemed like he had some serious delusions of grandeur going, which never ends well.

sad to see it turn out this way though. surely he knows he's wrong and will come around.

SEABEAST · 08-10-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwoopAE

OP wouldnt put him in a bunch of events despite his results and it's unreasonable to run up makeup playing 10ks then force someone to grind it off forever playing 1ks after Carter made OP a lot of money.

lol no it isn't. he could have easily sold pieces for whatever else he wanted to play. it's completely at the backer's discretion what a horse is allowed to play on the stake. how much money OP has or carter made him previously is completely irrelevant.

gettym · 08-10-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEABEAST

lol no it isn't. he could have easily sold pieces for whatever else he wanted to play. it's completely at the backer's discretion what a horse is allowed to play on the stake. how much money OP has or carter made him previously is completely irrelevant.

Why is it okay for a backer to drop the horse's stakes unilaterally if they had previously agreed he would play 5ks under the stake? Don't get me wrong I know this happens especially since 4/15 and backers wanting to reduce risk but it seems pretty unfair for the horse.

SEABEAST · 08-10-2011, 11:22 AM

because poker isn't static, things change, people get better and worse at poker, fields get tougher, etc. how many people that were profitable in a $10k in 2006 do you think are profitable in 2011? how many people that are profitable in a $10k in 2011 do you think were profitable in 2006? a backer is supposed to just keep putting horses in whatever they want to play no matter what changes contextually?

mement_mori · 08-10-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gettym

Why is it okay for a backer to drop the horse's stakes unilaterally if they had previously agreed he would play 5ks under the stake? Don't get me wrong I know this happens especially since 4/15 and backers wanting to reduce risk but it seems pretty unfair for the horse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindplz

With every player I have staked the deal has always been pretty much the same. Stake is mostly for online with me putting players in occasional live tourneys. WIth carter over the last year I staked him for a ton of live but also took smaller pieces in some events I had less interest in. We never had a set deal or guarantee for either are playing at the current time.

It's pretty clear that online was the main focus of the deal and the occasional live tournament was just added to keep the horse happy/take some calculated shots. It seems like Tom just decided to put him in more live tournaments since he was doing so well and putting in good volume online. Now once there is no online poker for Carter anymore (and he dosen't wanna relocate) obviously the deal changes and Tom dosent have the same incentive to put him in expensive live tournaments, very reasonable imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindplz

I told Carter that I would be willing to put him into 1k and 1500 WSOP events along with the Main event and that I just couldn't risk putting him in the bigger buyins because of his fragile mental state and the likelihood that any additional makeup incurred during the WSOP would be worth very little after the series if carter once again decided to walk away from poker.

Also with a horse like Carter who threatens to quit poker so often (I remember him stopping a sunday session after busting the first four tournaments he was playing for Tom, 90% sure it was during wcoop/scoop as well!) clearly it's a lot more reasonable to put him in bigger events when his makeup is low, can't really blame Tom for that imo.

gettym · 08-10-2011, 11:35 AM

fair enough, i don't want to derail this thread too much so i'll leave it be.

Kramerica · 08-10-2011, 11:39 AM

Most backer's are heartless ****-suckers, that's why. Regardless of how much money they have they have no problem cutting people loose who have no other options 5 days before the wsop starts. It's all about DA MUHHHHNEY.

gettym · 08-10-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kramerica

Most backer's are heartless ****-suckers, that's why. Regardless of how much money they have they have no problem cutting people loose who have no other options 5 days before the wsop starts. It's all about DA MUHHHHNEY.

lol backers = NFL Team Owners

horses = stud RB that gets 350 carries a yr for 3 yrs and wrecks, inks an 80mil/6yr deal with like 12 mil guaranteed and is cut after his first season on the deal.

Kramerica · 08-10-2011, 11:43 AM

YEAH WHAT THE F... IF I'm chris johnson or Desean JAckson I wouldn't suit up for any less than 20m guaranteed RIGHT NOW.

kleath · 08-10-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gettym

lol backers = NFL Team Owners

horses = stud RB that gets 350 carries a yr for 3 yrs and wrecks, inks an 80mil/6yr deal with like 12 mil guaranteed and is cut after his first season on the deal.

WHAT

Syphonia · 08-10-2011, 11:54 AM

you really can't expect somebody to be okay with being cut from tournaments they know they will make the most money playing, especially when they've already built up makeup playing them.