Notice that out of 12 pgs no one else tried to make a joke. I'm all for a good sarcastic joke but not only was McMatto's post unnecessary but it wasn't even funny

I thought it was funny and I don't think it was a dig at tmay, just a joke. I think you took it too personally.

Despite the precedent it could set in the MP, can we all agree that if Tmay comes in this thread after Day 1, explains that because he didn't close this thread he ended up selling 97% of himself and that'd he'd like to refund the last 10% (i consider the 3% booked based on when it was reserved) and add some compensation for what his current equity at the time would have been and maybe a little on top for his negligence that everyone would have been okay with it?

At this point a solution needs to be reached. It's really tough 1) seeing how it was handled by tmay and 2) knowing the end result of the tourney, but if we have all the information available now (total % sold) AND hold the position that there was no angle (that seems to be the consensus), then I think the decision on what is fair needs to be decided from the point he came into the thread and cancelled the action. There is just no way that both sides wouldn't have wanted to work something out at that point knowing that tmay currently had 2-5% of himself.

I do, however, think that Tmay should lose his MP privileges for at least 6 months just to hammer the point home that 1) the way this was handled can lead to copycat intentional angles from "reputable players" and 2) this is a place of business and if you can't handle it as such you have no reason to be in this MP.

Pretty sure this was with me. I wasn't happy but knew in Dan's mind I had no action so was totally ok with it and accepted that I had no action before any serious money was at stake.

I am almost postive Tmay at the start/day2/end of the tournament had no intention in his mind of having the 3% and 10% out. That being said the onus is on him to clarifty with the investors what the situation would be as soon as he found out that he might have accidentaly oversold.

I think Tmay is one of the nicest/best guys in poker when there are tons of douches/scumbags but he really messed up here. Not trying to add the guys on AIM or PM or even respond in the marketplace besides him saying action is off is total bull****. Yea it is something he doesn't want to stress about but it is day 2 of a small 10k and the guy has played tons of live tourneys for the last 5 or so years. Plus no way that he should start a tournament without taking 5 minutes to double check what action is booked. Again I don't think there was a hint of malicious intent but being unaware of the rules of the marketplace doesn't wipe all responsibility from his actions.

I think a freeroll is fair since had Tmay busted he would have sent back the investors shares so it is pretty unfair for them to have been freerolling him on the entire amount of their percents. How much of a freeroll depends on a resolution which Tmay and the investors (who will both hopefully be reasonable) can come to. Again this would have been much easier if it was discussed on day 2 not when he comes 2nd in the tourney.

On a more happy note congrats on killing it and save some action for me next time so I can get that lucky Tmay money.

good post which sums up my thoughts as well, hope this gets resolved and nothing like this happens again here... sucks because it would have literally taken less than 2 minutes to prevent but negligence has to be paid for in some way/shape/form.

Anyone give a cliff's of this cluster?
I want to join the drama.

Well I Dont see why 2+2 should even pamper this guy, wtf makes him so special?
he should pay or get marketplaced banned end of story lets not add any more he say she say TIM pay up or get banned and rec a bad rep here with 2+2 obv he doesnt care about the fact he owes investors money and gave em a big Ffff off...

This should overall be put in the negative feedback thread for sure! To say the least

Tmay has reiterated this to me but again, as many including myself have pointed out, I think Tmay was unintentionally freerolling me and the other investor, not the other way around. No one can say in this situation that if they busted on day 1 that they would have sent back, because as this thread played out its clear that this action would indeed be the wrong move on tmays part. There is almost no reason to send back the money if he had busted on day 1, and I suspect that decision would have come after some consultation with others, who would likely tell him not to send it back (for good reason).

Tmay and I are talking over PMs currently, I'll keep you guys updated.

This is a great example as to why ALL action purchased should be posted in the thread. Another problem I see here is according to some sources he sold 85%, if this is true then:

85 * 1.2 = 102

ASSUMING this is the case he was already profiting 2% before the tournament started and playing for 15%. Not only is he playing entirely risk free but he is already being guaranteed money in his pocket, this should absolutely not be allowed.

Tim, you need to clear up this situation ASAP. The longer you let this hang out in the open the more damaging it will be to your reputation.

why shouldn't that be allowed? the player still has incentive to maximize his winnings for the tournament which is what the investors want, if you trust them to act on that incentive then there's no reason it shouldnt be allowed

I think it is Ok as long as investors know how much you are selling upfront.

I'm fine with someone not putting up their own money but I think a player being guaranteed a profit no matter the outcome should not be allowed. For example, if they have something they want to do later in the day they may or may not be more inclined to play sub-optimally and punt rather than do their best to win. It is very hard as a buyer to make that judgment if you don't know someone personally.

My statement was more of an opinion but I think the MP needs some sort of rule on it one way or the other. The fact that all action sold was not disclosed is definitely a huge issue, especially since it was such a large piece. If someone sells 60% of themselves and then sells like a 1% piece to a friend later I don't really care if that's on the record. However, if someone is selling an undisclosed amount (say 40%-60%) to a large investor then I think that is very important information to know when they are selling an additional 25% such as the case ITT.

My $.02

Investors can decide for themselves whether to accept a guaranteed profit, I don't think there needs to be a rule against it. Completely agree that total action being sold needs to be disclosed even if only part of the total is being sold in this forum, and that wasn't done in this thread.


Edit: I think this thread should probably prompt the adoption of some requirements for OPs in this forum, including: (1) total action being sold; (2) conditions under which action is deemed booked; and (3) deadline for booking action.

it's a sunk cost, the tournament is either worth playing for 15-20% or it's not, there's no real difference between putting up .1% of the buyin yourself or getting paid .1% of the buyin to play. as I've said, if you don't think the person will do everything they can to maximize their expectation in the tournament then don't buy their action, but there's no reason to make a rule against it. agree with you+todd that it should be clear how much action people have though.

there has been a lot of discussion in the MP in a lot of threads (a lot of them are stickies) about what should be included in a post/OP/updates.


i sure hope this thread is the catalyst to actually make people forced to use a set rule.


it really sucks that this stuff happens cause some people dont know how to handles themselves in business transactions.

For whatever it's worth, I haven't looked at more than three posts in this thread, I've never met TMay, and I'm willing to arbitrate if people want. There are definitely people out there with more experience at this stuff than I have, but I might be useful in this situation.

If not, carry on! I have no idea where this conversation is, anyway!

All my best,

--Nate

I get why you are coming from. In my example with Dan I hadn't sent him money yet but in my head the action was booked, which means I might as well have sent him the money based on our mutual trust. Dan began playing the tournament under the assumption that I had no action. At this time he essentially committed to "send me back the money". Had Dan busted day one I am certain he would not have asked for money for the percent I assumed I had purchased.

I understand you can't trust Tmay to that extent in this instance so it differs a lot, but if a large group of respected players are saying that Tmay can be trusted it should influence how the situation is dealt with somewhat.

It is a bit bizarre to think about but if you guys, or more likely a panel of arbiters, can come to a reasonable % where Tmay wouldn't have sent back you could make that X 10% and 3% respectively the amount of action you guys had in the tournament.

Wow can't believe tmay's response to the unknowing investors....It was obviously tmay's fault as this is his thread and should have been closed/updated before the tourney started. How do you just forget about a 10k buyin thread where you are selling action. It is both very unprofessional and douchey on his part and he def. should come to a resolution with the two investors with an arbitrator involved. It's actions and irresponsibility like this that will ruin the marketplace.

By law, an offer that has clear and definite terms, is agreed to by both parties, and is supported by consideration is viewed as an option contract even without a formal written agreement. In this case, the terms are clear and definite: the who, what, where, when, how much are all in op. The offeror (Tmay) later states that deal is confirmed upon transfer of money, which was also serves as an acceptance of terms and consideration by the offeree's (redgrape and the 3% guy). In the court of law resided by the guy posting on an internet forum who just got an A- on his business contracts exam in a 200-level business law class but has no further law training or aspirations to become a lawyer, I'd join the masses who say Tim should be bound by the original agreement that the 13% was booked and could not be revoked.

For the record, I don't think Tim had any malicious intent, but it was his job to cancel any action from the thread he opened before the tournament began, not during.

Maybe if you got an A+ you'd think differently #doesnothaveacasebuttimishandlingthispoorly

Sort of agree, but I think the forum should only go so far to protect people. If you're buying pieces for significant amounts of money, you should be doing due diligence, and if questions like "how much of yourself are you selling", "how much of your own money is going in", or "are you selling pieces outside of the marketplace" are important, the buyer should be asking them, and making buying/not buying decisions based on the answers they receive.

IMO the role of the forum should only be to remove access to people doing things that are blatantly dishonest (not playing promised events, shipping shares of winnings).

In this specific case, as long as it's still being discussed, I think the mods don't need to step in yet. My opinion would be that unless the 13% (or whatever) took him over 100% sold, he should pay it out. If it means he ended up only playing for a microscopic percentage of himself, well, lesson learned for him about leaving threads open. People making mistakes and having to pay financial consequences is the essence of poker.

so did he sell the 10% to someone right before the tournament? I think this plays a big factor here if I'm understanding the above statement correctly.

There are 3 days between the last amounts shipped and tmay attempting to cancel. If it was prior to the event starting thats one thing, but once it starts and you make day 2 w a stack, negligence is not going to fly.