Great contribution to the thread imo.... People have real problems, with real money on the line, and you come in the thread at a time like this and shove it up people's arse by saying your glad you don't have any money in jeopardy.. Shows what kind of person you are...

well it wouldnt be true if people werent scamming on markups.

i have just about 50k over stars/ftp right now, so yeah it probably affects me, i just havent happened to be active in marketplace.

lol stfu tufat did nothing of the sort and is an extremely nice person.

I mean I have cashed out a good portion/% of the money that ppl invested in me before the summer. One is in a wire(which hasn't arrived) One is in a form of a check (which hasn't arrived). When they do arrive, A. Should my wire go thru, should I try to cash the check too. B. What if both of them bounce or wire doesn't go thru. Stars probably wont be in contact with me. Where is this $.

I shouldn't honor ppl's %'s when I cant recieve the money to begin with should I?

sighs, I have no clue what to do. Im just hoping my last wire/check is a good part of the last bunch that went out.

agreed

horse is on the hook. No doubt all of mttc will disagree, but once you receive the money it's your responsibility, e.g if they withdraw it and get robbed on way back from bank.

This has to be a joke. What about the people who sell a 50 K package and they sold it in $500 increments? He owes 50 K instead of 100 people taking a $500 loss?

I don't think we need to worry too much about the money "disappearing". But if it did, there's no way it is fair to expect the horse to pay it all back.

if you have received money online for a live event, you have to tell your investors right now if you a) still plan on playing the event, and b) if you are honoring their investment.

for example, if you sold for a 10k and received a 20% investment via stars, you can not access that money atm. so it is up to the horse to either cancel the package, or tell investors that their piece is still valid, despite not being able to access the money.

there shouldnt be any situations where the horse can angle an investor by not telling them what they are going to do. because if they cant access the money and bust out of the 10k, obviously they are going to want to say the investment was valid. but then if they win the 10k, they will want to say they couldnt get the money off stars, so the investment was void. investors need to contact horses, and horses need to contact investors to avoid any potential scams or mixups.

Good 1st step

It's unfortunate granted, however, I don't think that people realise the gravity of posting packages etc, one you receive money etc I think you're liable for it. You cite the example of 100 people losing $500, what about one investor who keeps his roll on moneybookers to ameliorate inherent risks like this and who ships $50k to buy the whole package. I don't think you can just say, "oh wow ofc horse isn't on hook, that's not fair".

I don't think that it needs to be done RIGHT NOW, but it ldo should be done before the event is played so there's no Tmay situation. I'd prefer to let as much time as is reasonable pass to get a clearer picture of what's going on.

The thing here is, using my sense of "what is right" I can't really come up with a concrete answer. If somebody sold 50k worth of a package in tiny incriments there is obviously zero chance that they are gonna refund 50k out of their own pocket (which may be more than their entire bankroll), just zero... and honestly I wouldn't blame them.

Yet if that's the case it seems wrong for people who sold less to have to be held accountable for it, while people who sold more can't/won't be held accountable.



I feel like I am about as unbiased a party as you can find here, since I have sold roughly 8k in action that is now frozen, and I've also bought roughly 5-10k in action as well, and I really want to treat both the same way. Obviously it really sucks for me if everyone I bought shares of says "sorry bro you're sol" and then everybody that I sold to demands that their action be still held, then I lose on both ends.


Honestly, I think this scenario is also different than a horse getting robbed or losing the money or something else. In those cases, the horse HAD the money and then lost it. Here, I don't think that you actually "HAVE" the money until you cash it out or buy into the event, but that's just my opinion and I don't really have a legal framework to back it up.



Also, there are all sorts of similar situations. What if my friend asked if he could send me online $ for cash yesterday, and I said sure, and he sent it and then it got frozen in my acct? It seems ****ty for me to lose out because "his" money got frozen in my account. Does it matter if I've already sent/withdrawn his money yet?

What if _I_ was the one who asked for the "favor" and got "his" $ sent to my acct and now I'm stuck with it? (This is the scenario that actually happened with me for about 12k, and I feel like since I asked for it I basically am sol, but I am curious to see what ppl would think under the first scenario)


Stuff like this, the tmay situation and random other stuff is why I've always felt like we needed to mutually elect some marketplace leaders to write up a really clear set of rules, but this **** is just so wild west now that I really don't know.

FWIW I've never considered selling action for a ridiculous amount of money because I would never want that responsability. Some of the people selling action in the market place never intend to withdraw money that is sent to them online to pay for the actual event. If somebody sold 6-8k in action they very easily could have planned on keeping that money online to boost their roll while paying for the event out of cash they already had in their bank account or live roll. What about if people have already withdrawn the money for the event - and claim that the money left online was actually for the event and the money they withdraw was for personal expenses?

Yes this is a horrible situation, but how else can you handle the situation other than assuming that the person in posession of the money handles the risk associated with that posession?

I have only bought action in the mp recently so of course I'm biased, but if I were selling action something I would seriously consider before doing so is if I wanted the responsability of that money being shipped to me.

yea what about the people who are close to broke irl and just sold a 30k package and now has it frozen on stars or ftp? What happens if they cant get to the money? They have the investors ship again?

What happens if those same people get robbed when they withdraw $30k from their bank account on the way to the wsop? They're broke so they assume none of the responsability that comes with the posession of that money? I'm pretty sure when people get shipped money they realize that money is now their responsability. There are a ton of small risk extenuating circumstances that are possible, especially when dealing with online poker accounts and live poker events.

What about max? You think its right if he has shipped people hundreds of thousands of dollars recently that he assumes that responsability while it sits in their account online?

decision needs to be made over threads where the horse wants to play the event but is saying he will cancel package, play on his own money, and ship back the original investment when it's available

this seems completely wrong to me but willing to hear discussion

Yeah, that seems totally messed up and should be one of the easier situations to remedy. Obviously if they're going to play the event anyway, then they may have never planned on taking the money offline so the action should count or the funds MUST be returned.

Where the situation gets more murcky.....
The player is in the same spot that you describe, where he never planned on taking money offline to pay for the event....but now seeing that his online money is in limbo he will not play the event and claim that he could never get the money offline so the investors are on the hook for the funds and he will not be playing.

This is why I make the points I did.

I used what people have said in this thread as a stepping stone to the responses I made in the Isle $3,200 and the Florida WPT $10k packages I sold, anyone whose bought a piece of either of those of me should read them so there is no confusion. gl to us all

How do you consider a case like mine: I wish to play the events I sold but cannot play without getting the cash from online investments. The majority of my package has been live cash reserves, but I've had some money transferred online already for the WSOP ME. From what I can see right now either I a) Cancel and resell the action to those few percents that were sold/paid for online and return those people their money asap or b) Cancel the package completely and leave everyone out of action.

Option a is no good, but seems like the most reasonable course of action. Does anyone else have fair ideas or suggestions?

How would this not be a chopped pot?

If an investor sold action to an event down the road (say two weeks or longer) then I think it's reasonable for him to post in the thread and cancel the action because he wasn't able to withdraw the $ for the event. In the situation of bankrollme87 and a few others I've seen. The tournaments they are playing are within the next week. If you hadn't withdrawn the $ as of yesterday then it's obvious you were not planning on using the $ shipped to you to buy in to the event. FT wires (prior to this fiasco) were taking longer than 7 days. Many people's bankrolls live and online are big enough to handle online transfers for live tournament action and they just buy in with their own live bankroll and then w/d the online funds later down the road. I think it's highly unethical for horses to say: Oh you transferred me the $ online, the event is tomorrow, I can't w/d the $ you don't have any action but I'm still going to play the event. I think by far the best thing to do is for the horse to still play the event. And the next best thing would be for the horse to not play the event. The horse still playing the event and not honoring the action is just ridiculous.

If the money was transfered to players account they should uphold the agreement after all it is not in the investors account. The investor did what they were supposed to do if the player left it in their account instead of withdrawing it is the players problem.

Im sorry, but I still haven't seen any concrete cases that it is anything but on the investor here guys... Which sucks, I know.... I see it as follows.

Scenario 1:

Horse has not withdrawn $$ (it's all frozen)

His options:

A: Cancel package, let investors know now.. Hope that the frozen money gets unfrozen and ship back.

B: Cancel package, let investors know now.. Money lost forever.. UL investors..

C: Don't cancel package, state that he would like to play if there is enough interest to get him the $$ irl... Current investors have a choice of buying another piece with irl funds or cutting their potential loss there. Obv. in this option once (if) online funds are unfrozen, funds get shipped back to investors.

D: ( I guess ) Horse has enough IRL money and is willing to go on the limb for the frozen funds and play event(s) with his own money and honor the funds and %'s of the investors.

Horse has partially withdrawn $$

A1: Cancel package, Western Union or Mail or wire funds to the investors in which you withdrew their $$ and let the "frozen" investors know that you will ship back asap.

B1: Cancel package, Western Union or Mail or wire funds to the investors in which you withdrew their $$ and the money of the "frozen" investors is lost forever.

C1: Don't cancel package, honor the investors in which you have withdrew funds and give the "frozen" investors the options of buying another piece with IRL funds or opting out hoping their online $$ gets unfrozen.

D1: (I guess) Horse has $$ to cover online $$ and is willing to carry the risk for these funds and honor the withdrawn $$ and the frozen money, plays event.

Scenario 3, horse has withdrawn all $$

A2: Horse plays event, makes shipping of profit arrangements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is going to be some grey area with the people who have withdrawn earlier in the month or last month via check, or wire, and now the checks bounce and/or the wires don't go through. My scenarios don't take this into consideration, they are based on horse receiving the money in hand.

If I have missed anything someone add.. But these are really the only options as I see it just thinking off the top of my head.

I completely agree and posted in both of bankrollme87's threads even though I dont even have action questioning his assumptions. He completely just assigns all risk for money in his account to investors even though it looks like he wasn't even going to use that money. This is the problem. When someone ships you money, you either play the event holding their % or yourefund their investment. All other risks associated with posession of those funds ar obviously assumed, how could they not be?

+1 to this scenario