Hypothetical... - Page 11 - Selling Shares - Live -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

We keep bringing up situations where the funds in the seller's account are frozen. However, I would imagine there are scenarios where the seller is European and his buyers are the ones whose accounts are frozen. Let's say the American buyer shipped 2 K for a piece last month and the European seller cashed it out to his bank account and played the tourney. If the European cashed in the tourney and owed 3 K back to the seller, I don't think anyone would dispute that the right thing for the seller to do is to send the funds back to the buyer via check, and not wait until the buyer is able to receive online transfers again. It doesn't matter that "a deal is a deal", and the original deal involved an online transaction. The money can be accessed, so it should be returned.

What about a similar situation, only the tournament/series hasn't taken place yet (for example, all of the WSOP packages that money has already been sent for)? Should there be some sort of community-guidelines put in place to prevent Americans from canceling their action and asking for their investments to be returned via check, or is something like that ok if there is ample time given for the horse to find other investors?

Quote

04-18-2011 , 11:44 PM

#252

Pghfan987

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,936

That's a good question. In my opinion, horses should offer their backers the chance to cancel their action, given the extreme circumstances. I would be interested to hear other people's opinions on that.

I think the horse offering the money back is the right thing to do, but I'm not sure if it should be required by the community. Tough spot.

Quote

04-19-2011 , 12:25 AM

#253

Tourbound68

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,102

Quote:

Originally Posted by imawhale26

Hey guys I need someone to weigh in on an issue I'm having with a stake. I was the sole investor in Chase Hendrick's action at the Spring Roundup in Pendleton. The tournaments started on 4/14 and ran thru today. Keep in mind 4/14 is prior to the DOJ shutting down FTP. Anyways, he chose to not play today's event and wants to issue my refund via FTP when the funds become unfrozen. He says that he never cashed out the funds from his account and thus should be allowed to refund the $ this way. I've specifically asked him to refund by check instead. I just want what's right here and even though I think asking for a refund via check is the right thing to do I'd like to get the opinion of people here.

Here's a link to the thread, thanks for your time.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...undup-1005104/

Given the time frame of your payment ( I think it said 3 days the start of tournament series) and the fact that FTP had been taking months to process payments, do you think this changes anything?

I have not read the thread, but if he states this as the reason he didn't withdraw I would say this holds more water. Because, I myself chose not to withdraw via full tilt due to the fact it was taking people forever to get their money.

IF he didn't state this as the reason, I see it as a clear angle to have X amount of funds and free roll on paying you or not if the funds are frozen.

Quote

04-19-2011 , 12:42 AM

#254

hoodskier

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 5,149

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tourbound68

It seems like a blatant angle regardless considering the last tournament took place on 4/14. The funds should have been sent back via FTP before the transfers were blocked if that was to be the method of re-payment. Wildhorse has free internet throughout the casino (at least as of last year's Spring Roundup when I was there).

Quote

04-19-2011 , 12:46 AM

#255

hitme1tim3

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,050

maybe he didnt play cuz he wasnt feeling up to it and didnt get around to sending money back cuz he was busy with something

i dont see how it was a blantant angle, he could not forsee the future, if he could id bet he'd have sent it back in time....assuming he's on the up and up

Quote

04-19-2011 , 12:58 AM

#256

hoodskier

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 5,149

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitme1tim3

The problem with this is that all of the tournaments occurred before "Black Friday" as people have been calling it (4/15). If he had not cashed out the money before that date then it is fairly clear he had no intention of cashing it out at all. The same cannot be said for tournaments that occurred at a later date and thus it is a blatant angle if he does not payout the refund from the tournament that he did not play.

I agree this is a different case than if he can prove he attempted a cashout that was denied but this does not seem to be the situation from the information presented by either party.

Quote

04-19-2011 , 01:16 AM

#257

hitme1tim3

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,050

actually the tourny in question, that he did not play, was played on 4/18, according to the investor, as he said, the tournys started 4/14 and ran through today, and the horse decided not to play the tourny today(4/18), in which case the investor was owed for that.....and that the horse never withdrew the funds, so he just used his own money and kept the investors online, but treated his own money as the investors

i dont think there was any angle here, im sure thats done a lot

now that i think about it

the horse DEF owes the investor in this situation, and should send a check immed

so chance owes him a check, IMHO

if im reading that all right....

Last edited by hitme1tim3; 04-19-2011 at 01:19 AM. Reason: did that make sense?

Quote

04-19-2011 , 01:21 AM

#258

hoodskier

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 5,149

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitme1tim3

It doesn't really matter if the schedule of tournaments began or ended on 4/14, the point is the package was clearly to start BEFORE any of this mess went down. I think this clearly makes the seller liable for the funds and investors should be issued a check or live cash for any of the tournaments on the schedule that were not played.

Quote

04-19-2011 , 01:27 AM

#259

hitme1tim3

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,050

ya i agree, after i wrote all that out i realized the horse is def liable here, imo

Quote

04-19-2011 , 01:55 AM

#260

imawhale26

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,714

Hey guys, thanks for the opinions. Chase sent me a pm saying he'll send a check no problem at all. I should have said in the OP that there was 0 chance of this being an angle and that we both just wanted what was right since this was a weird situation. I would 100% invest in him again. Thx

Quote

04-19-2011 , 01:56 AM

#261

Pghfan987

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,936

I'm glad to see this situation was resolved amicably. You da man, Chase.

Quote

04-19-2011 , 06:18 AM

#262

chasehendricks

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 526

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pghfan987

EDIT: Chase did you request a cashout at all? I don't understand.

I attempted to withdraw funds the day they were received (4/14) but my wire transfer/echeck options weren't available at this time -- I've had this happen a few times in the past and it is usually available again within a week or two (I guess they're having trouble with payment processors

)

In no way was I attempting to angle shoot -- I just wanted to make sure we took the correct action given the circumstances... fwiw I sent Imawhale a pm minutes after "twoplustwoplustwo" and "pghfan987" verified what I should be doing.

tyty for all of your responses

Last edited by chasehendricks; 04-19-2011 at 06:18 AM. Reason: Zima has spoken--Hoodskier sounds grumpy