20% confirmed for sure. I wouldn't pay a cent more.

see you in court.

If Galen asked Crisp if it was ok to move 5% to vivek would he really say "no, that is not okay."? I would imagine that type of response would be in poor taste even if he is within his rights to do so.

This question is obviously about whether the seller should have the power to move around shares prior to the start of a tourney.

Since moving %s seems to happen frequently (rightfully or not), I would have to put myself in the 20% camp. If the precedent of moving %s around needs to be changed, then this is something that should be stickied in the MP.

Galen and crisp had a one on one private conversation in which they booked action for an upcoming tourney. That conversation could have taken place in person, over email, over aim, or over pm etc .....and in none of those situations would posting in the marketplace or anywhere else on 2+2 right before the tourney to unilaterally change a booked private bet be following "precedent".

The level of % change also shouldn't matter to the correct result. Changing from 25 to 20 is the same as from 25 to 0.

If Galen posted saying Crisp now had 0 because he sold it all to Vivek instead I don't believe people would be so easily swayed to saying Crisp has no action, which illustrates how bad this logic is.

Good point, curious what people would say if he'd given Vivek 25% instead

Changing from 25% to 20% is not the same as 25% to 0%, I understand the point your trying to make. But cutting a % by 20% is not the same as completely cutting Crisp out.

I understand what your getting at though (if he can arbitrarily reduce it 5% its similar to arbitrarily give the full 25% to Vivek) and the hypothetical in the 2nd paragraph is definitely interesting.

My resolution; 100 or so posts ago, why not start a standard or somehting like this...

Has to be low like 10% of changed ammount etc, since we talked about buyers hold the power. Anyhow we cant/shouldnt really punish sellers too much when they act in good faith. Further if you seller lets u change something u and you talk about it first, then no "10%" tax if agreed upon. If this starts to be a problem and people are unbooking right b4 events all the time then we raise it to 20% of %-change-tax.

That being said a little, seriously keep it small, recourse should be available or standard.

its so ridiculous for people to set a limit on how much of a share you can change. How can you justify that giving 5% to vivek is okay but giving him 20% or all 25% is not? As funkii said, it is not logical when i see people posting "i think 22.5% is fair because it is even" or "5% is okay but any more isn't because it's not that much".

In this case, is it okay for galen to change a buyers booked share without the buyer's knowledge before the start of the tournament? If this is okay, then he only owes 20%- -if not then 25% should be paid. Setting thin resolutions or proprosing freerolls doesn't solve a problem that could pop up again in the marketplace.

edit: there have been many times i have bought action from friends privately that have sold the remaining pieces in the marketplace. Once i book a piece with them, i assume i have that % unless they contact me and tell me before the tournament. I trust that they would contact me since they know i won't be checking their marketplace thread to see if they changed my share. how is this different?

Sorry but precedent on the poker site where all parties use and frequent absolutely matters even if the action is sold in person. There are rules of buying/selling in the 2p2 poker world so people who follow these rules for all their other transactions definitely would assume these same precedents apply for private deals.

As to the question on 25 to 0 instead of 25 to 20 I think people would think he was a bit scummier but if he posted before the tourney about it I'm not sure people would be outraged.

Whaaaaaat? So if he didn't contact him but listed in MP saying he had 0 instead....and then won 600k.....and crisp goes from 150k to 0, you're saying people in the 20% camp would be okay with that? Not possible. And yes, changing from 25 to 20 is the same as 25 to 0. The amount isn't in question. The ability to do so is.

At least this situation is simple like Galen said.

Im dumbfounded by the Amount of people who seem to have zero meaning for the word booked. Action was booked by both parties at 25%. Piece was paid in full for 25% in my opinion as galen still owed crisp 5100 euros from the madrid win when this was booked.

You cannot, by yourself, make decisions for someone else, like change something that was booked without confirming the change with the other party involved. Thus the reason we use the word booked in the first place. If you were allowed to make these decisions on your own the word booked would have no meaning whatsoever.

This is not a marketplace reserve which yes changes, cancels, etc. This was booked paid action between two grown men. Action subject only to the tournament being played. Which it was.

Just because this forum exists it allows us to make decisions unilaterally on bets booked between two people? If we make it public? Of course not. Public or not the other party has to approve it. Essentially with this thought process galen can publicly book crisp for 25% in his next tourney as long as he makes it public, no need to even ask crisp right? Hes made it public and shet crisp has taken 25% in the past, who cares what crisp wants or not, Apparently hes not needed to confirm.

The word booked means booked. Thus the use of the word. We have the word so this exact scenario does not happen.

What is so hard about this?

@walkmyln u already said that.

Can u please explain the difference between:
Resv. and Confirmed
&
Confirmed and Booked

i mean i think everyone agrees undoubtedly that the action was initially booked at 25%, that is very clear in the pms. The issues we are debating are if he should be able to change the action without the confirmation of the buyer, and if the marketplace thread was sufficient validation of the confirmation (which it was not imo).

Seems pretty clear but reserves give the buyer the option to back out or buy a smaller share (nothing is booked, seller holds action for buyer). My interpretation of confirmation is when BOTH parties agree to a said percentage (seller offers x amount at y markup and buyer "confirms"), and the end result is that it is "booked".

What if Galen posted Crisp 30 percent

lol

Its frowned upon, but one can unbook someone as long as its before the tourney.

if that's the standard, do you not think it should be changed? what is the difference between unbooking action w/o confirmation or unbooking any other type of prop/sports bet?

If the line in a sports game moves what happens to a pre placed bet?

I'm saying it'd be the same as it is now, obviously unethical but not bad enough to force him to freeroll himself. If he posted in a thread that he had 0 instead of 25% and he busted early you think anyone would think he owed 25%? That's why I think it quite simply has to be 20% in this situation and would be 0% in the other situation.

Which is why things are agreed to well ahead of time by both parties. Nothing forces him to be freerolled except his own actions.

Maybe people will just indian give action back to him hes been buying up action can't see how he could complain.. Time to sell 5k in action buy a car sell it for 5250 and then unbook action with galen. Free loans

I've read everything, there's strong points on both sides but in the end, I have to say I side with Galen because he's been honest in the past and everything was rightfully changed before the tournament started.

After reading all I def agree this has a little grey area in it. I however believe if you have a 2 person conversation that you both agree it is "booked", the only way to change this is through another 2 person conversation with each party in agreement on a change. With this situation both parties are on the same side of the $. Look at an example of booked where parties aren't on the same side as in a last longer. You can't post on a forum and cancel the booked action, you would have to address the person personally to change the action and I believe this situation should be looked at in the same way. 25% imo

?