Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Hypothetical... Hypothetical...

04-18-2011 , 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodskier
bigtex 21 ladies and gentlemen. One of the biggest ****ing idiots we've ever seen in the staking forum and that says A LOT.

edit: obv Dutch is a scumbag but you sir are still a moron.
And you sir hide behind a phony avatar mine is my actual picture and many people in the poker world know me.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex21
And you sir hide behind a phony avatar mine is my actual picture and many people in the poker world know me.
ANSWER MY ? are u real?
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by braudablowup
ANSWER MY ? are u real?
Sure come to the WSOPC New Orleans next month or the WSOPC National Championship $1,000,000 freeroll or the WSOPC main event, I'll be there and we can discuss poker issues.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex21
Sure come to the WSOPC New Orleans next month or the WSOPC National Championship $1,000,000 freeroll or the WSOPC main event, I'll be there and we can discuss poker issues.
great
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 02:00 AM
Its unlucky that you got SCAMMED.. But getting scammed by dutch boyd and having your funds seized the doj aren't even close to the same thing.. Think about it for a second man come on
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex21
Sure come to the WSOPC New Orleans next month or the WSOPC National Championship $1,000,000 freeroll or the WSOPC main event, I'll be there and we can discuss poker issues.
hud
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatsoFat6969
Its unlucky that you got SCAMMED.. But getting scammed by dutch boyd and having your funds seized the doj aren't even close to the same thing.. Think about it for a second man come on
There is one big difference with doj injunctions there is a slim chance of getting the money released as for Dutch Boyd returning any money no chance.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex21
And you sir hide behind a phony avatar mine is my actual picture and many people in the poker world know me.
Hide? I already knew you were stupid so this really proves nothing but if you think I'm hiding you are kidding yourself. I have my avatar because I find it humorous you insufferable excuse for a human, please stop wasting oxygen and off yourself.

edit: btw I am running my package for Wildhorse I posted as planned and offered the people who invested in me for my Sunday package an alternate form of payment thereby transferring the risk to MYSELF. Just thought I would post that before you bash on me for "not being true to my word" as you have accused so many people of already.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 05:27 AM
I mentioned this about 100 posts ago... But please can we keep the discourse civil? Yes, this is a very rough situation, that's why we have to all come together and come up with a standard "best practices," to deal with this as a community.

I don't think bigtex's intentions in posting his opinion were at all malicious, but they also don't fully reflect the gravity of the situation or the new paradigm that is keeping gambling funds online as opposed to hard cash.

Continuing... I think, and feel, that Fatso has provided a worthwhile stopgap solution, but I believe the real key is communication between buyers and sellers, with this forum as a whole providing guidance.

Again, let's prove we're better than this by NOT in-fighting. It's much more important that we all stand together instead of pointing fingers and calling people names. We are truly all in this together.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 05:56 AM
I believe, Todd is correct, that as soon as the horse receives the money he is responsible for it. It's just unreasonable, unless the horse has explicitly outlined certain situations, for the investor to be responsible for how the horse handles his money, accounts, etc. If he got his account ban for cheating, lost his ability to have a bank account, lost the money, was robbed, or anything.

The investor assumes his action is booked once he sends the money, unless he gets it back before the event (generally accompanied by some explanation).

Though I believe this answer to be the correct reply to charder's question, pghfan's reply, the thread favourite atm, provides a more practical framework with how to deal with this truly catastrophic event, which is what the true intention of this thread is. I believe he's a touch too "hoi" to his/the horse's responsibility:
1) for his investors' money
2) to explain his individual situation to his investors and come to a resolution together.

This MP works b/c we all have a strong desire for it to work through being fair and reasonable.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 09:31 AM
I really don't get how I'm on the hook for money I gave to other people. Once I gave them that money...it is now thier repsonsability. How that is not crystal clear is beyond me. We all know the risks associated with money online - as small as the risk may be its still calculated and known. If you don't want to be responsible for money when people give it to you...then don't sell a package where you're holding more money than your comfortable being repsonsible for.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 09:46 AM
Eddie so ur saying a guy with 70k in escrow for super bowl squares. Owes everyone the 70k right now. So ir saying if this was a bank of america transfer from buyer to seller. And the us govt anti terrorism division froze BOTH accounts because they did not approve of the tranafer. That the seller owes the buyer 10k or action? The money you paid with is worthless. It would be worthless today sitting in your account same as it is in the horses account. By your logic everyone who reserved a piece but has to cancel due to all there money being tied up owes the horses the amount of there reserved piece. They shouldnt of kept there investing money online. It just doesnt make sense. So say enough people back out of your package who havent sent yet, you as horse now have to cancel package. The horse now what? Sends guy who already sent his piece online,, a live check? Essentialllu cashing out for him money which would of been frozen in his account if he did not ship online yet? Again makes no sense. Hope all can stop bickering on here and listen to everyones opinions. And hope everyone can deal with there unique situations like respectable adults. On iphone sure spelling grammar is horrible

Last edited by walkmyline; 04-18-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkmyline
Eddie so ur saying a guy with 70k in escrow for super bowl squares. Owes everyone the 70k right now. So ir saying if this was a bank of america transfer from buyer to seller. And the us govt anti terrorism division froze BOTH accounts because they did not approve of the tranafer. That the seller owes the buyer 10k or action? The money you paid with is worthless. It would be worthless today sitting in your account same as it is in the horses account. By your logic everyone who reserved a piece but has to cancel due to all there money being tied up owes the horses the amount of there reserved piece. They shouldnt of kept there investing money online. It just doesnt make sense. So say enough people back out of your package who havent sent yet, you as horse now have to cancel package. The horse now what? Sends guy who already sent his piece online,, a live check? Essentialllu cashing out for him money which would of been frozen in his account if he did not ship online yet? Again makes no sense. Hope all can stop bickering on here and listen to everyones opinions. And hope everyone can deal with there unique situations like respectable adults. On iphone sure spelling grammar is horrible
I respect your dedication to the topic sir. Anyone who sits and types that much on an iphone gets a A+ from me
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkmyline
Eddie so ur saying a guy with 70k in escrow for super bowl squares. Owes everyone the 70k right now. So ir saying if this was a bank of america transfer from buyer to seller. And the us govt anti terrorism division froze BOTH accounts because they did not approve of the tranafer. That the seller owes the buyer 10k or action? The money you paid with is worthless. It would be worthless today sitting in your account same as it is in the horses account. By your logic everyone who reserved a piece but has to cancel due to all there money being tied up owes the horses the amount of there reserved piece. They shouldnt of kept there investing money online. It just doesnt make sense. So say enough people back out of your package who havent sent yet, you as horse now have to cancel package. The horse now what? Sends guy who already sent a check? Essentialllu cashing out for him money which would of been frozen in his account if he did not ship online yet? Again makes no sense. Hope all can stop bickering on here and listen to everyones opinions. And hope everyone can deal with there unique situations like respectable adults. On iphone sure spelling grammar is horrible
Escrow deals are completely seperate and open an entirely different set of discussions.

Reserves have nothing to do with this as well. I actually hate the reserve system and had been vocal about it recently on the baords because it actually bides you to nothing and is a system set up to fail, so of course you can cancell - people do it all the time here.

Why are you assuming that I would have that money remain in my poker account if I hadn't made an investment deal when sending it to another player? Why is that money my responsability when I gave posession of it to another person? At what point does ownership and responsability for that money transfer if not when I give it to him? The only reason this is not making sense to everyone is because people were taking on huge risks when selling packages for an extreme amount of money that they were really not ready to be responsible for. Just because one of the high risk / low probability scenerios has occured doesn't mean they get to skirt that repsonsability.

As for your banking example, that also has no merit. When the money is transferred it obviously becomes the person who is in posession's responsability. If you choose to keep that money in your poker account, that is your choice. If you choose to put it in the bank, that is your choice. WIth each of these choices comes a set of risks. Could your bank be shut down? Yes. If I give you cash and the next day you deposit it in your bank, which is shut down, is that still my money at risk? No. Will you most likely get the money back anyway because of FDIC insurance? Yes. Are your poker accounts FDIC insured? No. Is it your choice to accept money via online transfer to your poker account when you know that in no way is that money insured? Yes. Do you assume responsability for those funds when they are transferred to you? Yes.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 10:10 AM
Right on man. Your opinion is your opinion. Take care. We both said our opinions. Which is about all anyone has right now as this has never happend before. Im sure everyone in there own situations will come to appropriate and fair compromises.

Last edited by walkmyline; 04-18-2011 at 10:27 AM.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkmyline
Eddie so ur saying a guy with 70k in escrow for super bowl squares. Owes everyone the 70k right now. So ir saying if this was a bank of america transfer from buyer to seller. And the us govt anti terrorism division froze BOTH accounts because they did not approve of the tranafer. That the seller owes the buyer 10k or action? The money you paid with is worthless. It would be worthless today sitting in your account same as it is in the horses account. By your logic everyone who reserved a piece but has to cancel due to all there money being tied up owes the horses the amount of there reserved piece. They shouldnt of kept there investing money online. It just doesnt make sense. So say enough people back out of your package who havent sent yet, you as horse now have to cancel package. The horse now what? Sends guy who already sent his piece online,, a live check? Essentialllu cashing out for him money which would of been frozen in his account if he did not ship online yet? Again makes no sense. Hope all can stop bickering on here and listen to everyones opinions. And hope everyone can deal with there unique situations like respectable adults. On iphone sure spelling grammar is horrible
your logic is flat wrong in every legal or business interpretation BUT given that this is such a tough situation for everybody it should be easy to come to agreements which doesn't burden either party with a unreasonable or immoral risk.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplustwoplustwo
your logic is flat wrong in every legal or business interpretation BUT given that this is such a tough situation for everybody it should be easy to come to agreements which doesn't burden either party with a unreasonable or immoral risk.
I would have no problem if the people I gave money to said...

"I know that money became my responsability when you gave it to me but please be reasonable here and lets come to decision thats the best for both of us considering how F'd up this is"

Instead of saying

"I'll send you back your money if I'm ever able to withdraw from my poker account - but I'm still playing the events in question with a different backer and you have no action"
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOB
I would have no problem if the people I gave money to said...

"I know that money became my responsability when you gave it to me but please be reasonable here and lets come to decision thats the best for both of us considering how F'd up this is"

Instead of saying

"I'll send you back your money if I'm ever able to withdraw from my poker account - but I'm still playing the events in question with a different backer and you have no action"
It seems that you've had some deals really not go your way. Please don't paint everyone with the same brush. Some of us really want to make it right but only have limited options.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noctis
I believe, Todd is correct, that as soon as the horse receives the money he is responsible for it. It's just unreasonable, unless the horse has explicitly outlined certain situations, for the investor to be responsible for how the horse handles his money, accounts, etc. If he got his account ban for cheating, lost his ability to have a bank account, lost the money, was robbed, or anything.

The investor assumes his action is booked once he sends the money, unless he gets it back before the event (generally accompanied by some explanation).

Though I believe this answer to be the correct reply to charder's question, pghfan's reply, the thread favourite atm, provides a more practical framework with how to deal with this truly catastrophic event, which is what the true intention of this thread is. I believe he's a touch too "hot" to his/the horse's responsibility:
1) for his investors' money
2) to explain his individual situation to his investors and come to a resolution together.

This MP works b/c we all have a strong desire for it to work through being fair and reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie
Escrow deals are completely separate and open an entirely different set of discussions.

Reserves have nothing to do with this as well. I actually hate the reserve system and had been vocal about it recently on the boards because it actually bides you to nothing and is a system set up to fail, so of course you can cancel - people do it all the time here.

Why are you assuming that I would have that money remain in my poker account if I hadn't made an investment deal when sending it to another player? Why is that money my responsibility when I gave possession of it to another person? At what point does ownership and responsibility for that money transfer if not when I give it to him? The only reason this is not making sense to everyone is because people were taking on huge risks when selling packages for an extreme amount of money that they were really not ready to be responsible for. Just because one of the high risk / low probability scenarios has occured doesn't mean they get to skirt that responsibility.

As for your banking example, that also has no merit. When the money is transferred it obviously becomes the person who is in possession responsibility. If you choose to keep that money in your poker account, that is your choice. If you choose to put it in the bank, that is your choice. WIth each of these choices comes a set of risks. Could your bank be shut down? Yes. If I give you cash and the next day you deposit it in your bank, which is shut down, is that still my money at risk? No. Will you most likely get the money back anyway because of FDIC insurance? Yes. Are your poker accounts FDIC insured? No. Is it your choice to accept money via online transfer to your poker account when you know that in no way is that money insured? Yes. Do you assume responsibility for those funds when they are transferred to you? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOB
I would have no problem if the people I gave money to said...

"I know that money became my responsability when you gave it to me but please be reasonable here and lets come to decision thats the best for both of us considering how F'd up this is"

Instead of saying

"I'll send you back your money if I'm ever able to withdraw from my poker account - but I'm still playing the events in question with a different backer and you have no action"



To noctis and EddieOB very well said. And if I ever decide to sell any of my action on MP everyone can expect that their bets will be booked when received period just as I know that idariva will handle the money for the % of his packages that I give him will be handled correctly.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOB
Why are you assuming that I would have that money remain in my poker account if I hadn't made an investment deal when sending it to another player? Why is that money my responsability when I gave posession of it to another person? At what point does ownership and responsability for that money transfer if not when I give it to him?
People seem to be forgetting a practical reason why this situation is so different than a horse's bank account being hacked or his cash being stolen. In the present case, if the buyer had not sent the money to the horse, THE MONEY WOULD BE FROZEN ANYWAY, just in the buyer's account. By having the money frozen in the horse's account, THE BUYER IS VIRTUALLY IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION AS IF THE TRANSACTION NEVER OCCURRED. If you expect the horse to pay out of their own pocket, then you are putting an unreasonable burden on the horse to put the seller in a BETTER situation than if they had never reserved any money.

Yes, this is assuming each buyer is not depositing online in order to buy specific shares, which is likely true >95% of the time.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pghfan987
People seem to be forgetting a practical reason why this situation is so different than a horse's bank account being hacked or his cash being stolen. In the present case, if the buyer had not sent the money to the horse, THE MONEY WOULD BE FROZEN ANYWAY, just in the buyer's account. By having the money frozen in the horse's account, THE BUYER IS VIRTUALLY IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION AS IF THE TRANSACTION NEVER OCCURRED. If you expect the horse to pay out of their own pocket, then you are putting an unreasonable burden on the horse to put the seller in a BETTER situation than if they had never reserved any money.
Your assumptions is in no way correct, and basing your entire analysis on it is flat out wrong.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:21 PM
Please elaborate.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:30 PM
How can you tell me if I hadn't sent someone money a week+ ago that that money would still be sitting in my account? If I hadn't purchased shares in the mp, I most likely would have withdrawn since I had more money online than I'm usually comfortable with.

Your point really doesn't matter as the instant the money is transferred so is the responsability, yet you can see how the assumption is wrong as well.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOB
How can you tell me if I hadn't sent someone money a week+ ago that that money would still be sitting in my account? If I hadn't purchased shares in the mp, I most likely would have withdrawn since I had more money online than I'm usually comfortable with.
If you are telling the truth, then you represent how a very, very small number of shares in MP are bought and sold. If we are to discuss MP policy generally, we should take into account how transactions are usually done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOB
Your point really doesn't matter as the instant the money is transferred so is the responsability, yet you can see how the assumption is wrong as well.
You keep assuming this without giving any reasoning why.
Hypothetical... Quote
04-18-2011 , 12:39 PM
Oh and just FTR I stand to "gain" $1300 and "lose" $2500 by the stance I am taking.
Hypothetical... Quote

      
m