Hello 2+2, I am Andelo Bozic, owner of Vasiona staking group, and I have a problem with one of my horses that I would like to take to 2+2 for an unbiased opinion. I am not calling him a scammer or anything yet, but it looks to me as if he is trying to steal my money despite being fully aware of what is going on. To avoid subjectivity on the matter, I would like only reputable community members to post, I don’t know if I can limit it by number of posts or anything, but I really wouldn’t like to make this a thread where he will invite his friends to write and then I do the same or something like that.

So, the story goes like this. While I was traveling to Barcelona for EPT, one of my horses, whose name I am not going to reveal yet unless he wants to come out and give his version of the story, binks a $3 spin n go for 9k while playing a session for me.
Here is a screenshot as a proof that he was indeed playing a session for me https://gyazo.com/188940acab800a16c98f87ef8782d519

However, he claims that this was for his own money, even though I have been loaning him 300$ monthly in order to pay his bills and survive until he binks something, because he is in makeup for 10+ months now. He has 100% fpps, but has never played anything for that money because he needs the money obviously. We made a deal for him to buy tournament tickets for fpp and then cashout money of the tournament worth. He has been cashing out this money consistently and here is a proof of that, as well as my loans to him:
https://gyazo.com/e2f5df1ccaae101400b108ad6cfa4eb0

Just before the session yesterday, he has made a cashout of 44$, which can be witnessed here
https://gyazo.com/89c0db1224704579eebf341979f14a61
However, when I asked him for emails, he has quickly deleted email from Pokerstars confirming this transaction or didn’t screenshot it, so that he could tell that he had his own money in account, which might give him some credit in this case. Here is a proof of that
https://gyazo.com/dab03abec96c1b4b42a1eeef5bc36870

Apart from all this, in his contract it clearly states that HE HAS TO ASK before playing anything for his own money, regardless of if he had any or not, and this clearly shows that he didn’t. I talked to his previous staker about this matter and he was 100% on my side, but I guess it was too tough for him to say goodbye to 3000$ after not having made a split for so long. I told him all this, and told him to show me any kind of a proof that money can be his, but only claim he made was that he has asked me before if he could play spins, which I would obviously never allowed or otherwise I wouldn’t loan him the money if he will gamble for his money. I still told him to find a quote of this on Skype and that I will agree if he does, but he obviously had no way of finding it. In addition to this, according to sharkscope, he played spins for the first time that day, and if I in fact did allow it he would have played it earlier as well, I guess. Here is a proof of that https://gyazo.com/f9f3de88e10584b860b57d0d2819fef8
Also, here is a screenshot of his previous staker confirming that his deal stayed the same when he sold him to me
https://gyazo.com/c79f94300b1572568d85255f428c33c0

So, even though I think this is pretty clearly on my side, I still want the unbiased opinion from reputable members on the matter, so that I can show him. In case he wants to come out and defend against these facts (which he previously wasn’t able to), I don’t mind, and after that I will post all screenshots, his screen names, his ID as well as his contract, but I wouldn’t like to make it super public before he refuses to pay after being shown wrong.

P.S. I have posted this in the negative feedback thread too, so if the mods think this is not appropriate for this forum I don't mind if they delete it from here

Pretty clear scam is pretty clear

LOL. This isn't even close

Pay the man his money

This pretty much nails it. He played a game, while on a staking agreement with you. Unless explicitly agreed in advance, he's playing with your money, so the game is on the stake, and the win is used to offset the makeup/loans.

IMO, the fact that he's deep in makeup at the moment is actually pretty irrelevant, although I can see why it makes the issue more emotive and the outcome more crucial for you. But if he hadn't binked then he would be down another $3 on his stake and he would have just said "Oops, I played by mistake, add it to my makeup!"

He did not play an fpp satty and there is no way to buyin for fpps anyways so that is out of question. He has had to ask for a permission before playing anything with his money, which at this point I would not have allowed because of loans. I would obviously either not loan him money then or not let him. Regarding future deals I dont know if I will keep him or not after this. Depends a lot on how he handles this.

this is gibberish. please stop posting.

OP, its quite clearly a scam and you deserve your share of the 9k.

^^ I was still editing, since I missed part of the OP.
Youpost is pointless and idiotic, with any reasoning. Just GTFO if you have nothing to add but something along the lines of "fold pre" in BBV.


All other posts abpve are absolutly freed of content, and to assume that horses simply add games to the deal's losses that they aren't supposed to play is simply bonkers, DUCY? (playing audit)


__________________________________________________ ___

I doubt that the horse never played a game on his own before...


If the horse has ever played a game that he wasn't meant to play (like cash or SNG, when deal was for MTT's only) and wrote it on the deal (even if it's been for the former backer, since it's same contract), you definintely deserve to get the 9k score for the deal. But if the horse has ever played any game that is not included in the deal before, and did never write any loss oin these on the deal, you deserve nothing of that $9K.
In that case, your horse obviously wouldn't need a thread to know you scammed him by freerolling.

1 - Was it the first time he played a game of his own money during your arrangement?
2 - Did he ever write any losses of his own action in own games on the deal?

If you answer both with no, you are obv the wannabe-scammer, OP.


This is only a tough spot, if this was the first time that the horse ever played a game on his own, no matter if it's been for you, or the former backer whom's contract you still use. In that highly unlikely case, I'm pretty confident that splitting it about 50/50 would be fair.

Very good for your claim! I didnt read closely before starting to post, then edited.

Only question left is if he has done this the past, playing other games on his own, and if he did or did not include them in the deal.*
I'm afraid that if he did, but never wrote losses of those games on the deal, you don't deserve anything of that score. But if he ever only listed a single game that wasn't included in the deal as loss for the deal, you deserve 100% for the make-up, imo.

BTW, why is it $9k, then just 3k at the end of the OP? Typo?


*
Ask him to check his own playing-audit, and proove that he played at least one game on his own before, lost, and didn't include it to the deal's make-up.
If he did that at least once, you need to check if he always did it like that for all side-games he played on his own money (or has sneaked in some losses to the deal's results). If just one answer is no, it should all be counted for the deal, I think.

One things I'd like to add.
What the hell is going through your heads (other posters), when you post "clearly a scam", "likely a scam" or whatever else on-liner response. What do you add by doing that? Nothing but hawk with your unfounded and hence useless opinion, wasting space. That sort of behaviour is the reason why 2+2 sucks nowadays, and I know most of you can do better.

I agree, clearly money goes for MU and probably he has also played other spins before that with staking $s

If you request player audit from stars, you will see every cashout

No, only if the horse has at least once listed a spin and go as a loss for the deal. Otherwise the backer would freeroll his horse.

I question all you peoples ethics, as well as your mental capacity.
Ofc, the horse was not allowed to play it, but nevertheless, if it wasn't the very first time he did, and he never listed a lost spin and go for the deal before/up to now, the backer can ofc not demand the whole amount for the deal. DUCY?
Trying to freeroll the horse happily, while being too lazy to even check if he ever played a spin and go that he included in the deal's results before (up to now), but putting this thread up already, is quite high on my personal characteristics for degen-behaviour.




I have a much more reasonable and fair backer, but after getting to hear all the opinions ITT, it seems like I've hit the lottery with getting backed by him...

He did it the first time to my knowledge and first time ever according to SS which I showed up there. He has not asked me to play it which he had to, otherwise he cannot do it for his money, and even if he did he had no money of his to play it. And, I really dont get yourntone. Why do you accuse other people and do you have any experience with staking, because I dont really understand your posts?

It would surely help if you could get your horse to post in here, since you don't yet seem to be able to answer my question if he has ever played anything on his own before during the deal, which he didn't count for the deal. If that has happened before, I would not support your notion that the full amount should be counted for the deal.

Force him to check his playing audit to proof that he has played "on his own" in any sort of SnG, cash-game or whatever isn't included in the deal's results, before this spin and go. If he fails to show at least one time where he did this before, you deserve all the money, since in that case, he could have intended to freeroll you.
Vice versa, if he can proove several times that he played on his own before, he still broke the contract, but you cannot expect to get the full amount of the win for the deal, since in that case, you'd ofc have freerolled him.

You sound fairly reasonable, and the fact that the horse did not yet get the idea to proof that he played on his own before - against the contract's rules, but ofc supporting his claims for this win - cause me to suppose that he either isn't very smart, or did actually try to freeroll you there, never having played on his own during the deal before...
Now, this is just a wild guess, ofc.

https://gyazo.com/e2f5df1ccaae101400b108ad6cfa4eb0

- last cashout 7/31 ?
just take every ticket after that ( only 3x$16.50 in the pic) and see if there's more
- cashout on that day is 44$
- he's played 10 spins, which are 30$(or less, if ITM somewhere), so if there's 2 more 16.50$ tickets purchased between 7/31 and the day that happened and no other cashouts, then he is correct. If not then you are correct.


It's not that hard

The obvious question is are spin and gos generally part of your deal with him? Or do you only back him for MTTs/180 man sngs?


if your deal never involved spin and gos maybe he has some credibility, if hes played them in the past and taken it out of his money/fpp cashouts then his story could hold some weight....


but if you have had spin and go action before it's pretty clear you're entitled to the 9k

First of all he had to ask to play for his money every game separately so even if he did play other games he had to ask for spins too before playing them for his money. He was in a session with me without his money in account. You can see another cashout screnshot. And there is 1 or 2 more after 31/7, I didnt want to post too many private things. I linked him the topic but he still didnt respond. Also, let me add that he has agreed to pay back makeup without me having to ask which means he feels guilt, just doesnt want to pay the whole amount, otherwise he would keep it all.

Thanks everyone for answers. I really hope he comes to one of the threads and defends himself.

OP how to you square the fact that had your horse asked you would have said no (and therefore you would be entitled to $0 if he played anyway), but since he didn't ask and won $9k now you want the action?

the guy is busto & getting loans to pay his bills though... there is no way to justify playing $30 worth of spin n gos own dime when your backer has given you this money specifically to sort out your life.

if horse had asked, backer says no, horse can't play the spin&go without being a thief

It would be no to playing or no to loans. Seeing his situation he would not play and would take a loan and therefore he would get 0 as well. Now, he binked so I cannot let him take a freeroll either, especially not with my money, and 100% no even if he had any of his tbh...

Just let him pay all the mark-up, as you say he intends to, and agree upon a small 15-30% of the rest paid to you as a fine, for using your funds, my gut-instinct would say.
Would save both of you lots of headache, and likely has the highest future EV for both of you.

I fully understand that he doesn't want to post in here (by now), cuase of reputation and such, hence why he should agree to give you like 15-30% of all profits exceeding make-up, after he bought out of it with the first part of winnings.

Still I see this like this:
He wouldn't have listed the losses for the deal, since he was not allowed to play spins, right? Means, you did freeroll his unallowed borrowing of your money for spins, if the abpve is true.

Paying all make-up and a small % fine to you should be more than enough for you, to allow him to keep a clean name.
You are pretty lucky backer atm, and should realise how greedy you actually are. He basically stole 30$ of your money for a while,which ofc is wrong (even if it's just until next 2x 16,50$ fpp-tickets are collected). He wins a ****load by luck, solves all problems, and pays you a fine on top. That's even generous for you as a backer here, OP!

LOL at all the people saying OP deserves all the money. You are all unethical, exploitative, materialistic scum, who can't even spell empathy or logic, imho. Mildly said.
Horse would ofc have replaced the money, and not written it on the deal. Pretty obvious, given how OP has described their deal and communication about spins ITT.

Who exactly said OP deserves all of the money? can't see one single person saying it.

I admit that the internet is very difficult for me, hence why I resort to throwing blind punches all around me, once anyone dares to have a different opinion.

Let'sget one thing straight here:
This was not a scam, is not a scam, and would never have become a scam.
It's 30 ****ing dollars, likely even less, which would have been replaced within one or two session. All this drooling symantic inflation - or even perversion, imho - of the word scam has to stop, NOW!
We cut into our own profits and reputation when we cry "WOLF" every time we hear some sound in the woods