1. why should you get leeway because it was "frantically assembled"? thats your own fault for not planning ahead/deciding to play the mtt earlier.

2. doesnt make it right. if crisp posted an hour before he no longer wanted his piece, what would happen? you keep bringing up that crisp has people who work for him to look through threads. they might just be hourly type jobs and they dont actually confirm or really know what action he has/doesnt have. them seeing the 20% rather than 25% really isnt as big of a deal as you are trying to make it to be.

3. thats cool you hold yourself to such a high moral regard, but i am sure crisp holds himself the same in his own mind. its all good to say you woulda done this/that when it actually didnt even have a chance to happen.

4. it also seems quite unlikely that crisp would angle over this as well. he prolly has bought as much action as you have sent out to investors on this forum (or will have by WSOP end). pretty sure he has done a ton of business in russian staking forums as well

1.crisp n the icfund are 100% legit
2.Galen-sigh spot,however the pms are a direct
way to contact a person as u know that first hand
Crisp 25% should stick. I mean we know ur a legit guy
But so is the icfund/crisp they would of paid u 25%
Regardless. Now I see ur side too n id say negotiate for some middle ground. Best of luck.

very shocked to see you post this, weren't you the guy who bought t-mays action after he already sold out? I guess we know now for sure what you're real opinion was/is.

Either a buyer has a right to cancel action before an event, or they don't.

If they do, then this is a non issue because everything I did is fine. People cancel action all the time, sometimes they reserve the right to do it explicitly, sometimes they don't and just do it anyway. Generally as long as they do it before the event is played there might be some complaining but it hasn't been a huge deal from what I've seen. If you want me to dig up examples, I can do this.

If they don't, then either crisp saw the post and angleshot me (unlikely), or he did not see the post:

If he did not see the post:

1. Would he have agreed to take 20% instead of 25% before the event started if I explained the situation? I think it's highly likely that he would have.

2. There is literally no way that I would have gotten 25% if I busted. Even if he didn't see the post and sent me 25%, I would have sent it back. THE DIFFERENCE between this and the tmay situation is that Tmay sold privately to people so he could have kept the $ and nobody would have known. HERE, I PUBLICLY stated that he had 20%.

If he had sent me 25% and I tried to angleshoot him and not send him 5% back (which everybody knows I wouldn't have done, but just for the sake of argument), I would have been put on full blast in the community.

If your response is 'But he never would have seen the post!' then that's clearly incorrect seeing as he DID see the post and send me a pm today (yes, he managed to see post when it was on page 5, but not see it when he was making multiple other posts in the marketplace in other threads minutes after the post/thread were made and on the top of page 1. There are a number of plausible reasons for this, so I am not going to make a big deal out of it... if it was someone else I'd be pretty sure I was being angleshot, but as it is, the other explanations seem more likely here)


Bottom line:
I believe that the buyer has the right to change action if he does so in a forthright manner before the event. To me, that's the end of it. I intended for him to have 20%, I posted publicly that he had 20%, and I conducted my other business as if he had 20%. If, however, you disagree with that, then for you to think that I owe him 25%, you must also think that he would've owed me 25% despite my post saying he only had 20%, and that I would've taken that 25%. This is clearly not the case.


Now, like I said, just because I CAN do these things doesn't make it a nice thing to do, and given that I DID do it, I definitely should have taken more steps to inform him. Not because that would change anything, but because it is less irritating for him to find out earlier rather than later. And for these missteps, I have offered some additional equity which I believe to be fair.

There is substantial precedent in the marketplace to support my position here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's how things should be in the future, but that's just the way it is now.

I disagree with your bottom line argument. It is certainly plausible that you would be on the hook for 25% if you cashed but only be allowed to recoup 20% of your buy-in if you didn't because you are the one who made the mistake. This is, of course, all assuming Crisp never saw your MP post.

My bottom line is that I don't think it's cool to send a PM to an investor saying "booked", only to post a thread an hour later saying that action isn't booked. I'm assuming the Crisp organization has some sort of spreadsheet or record keeping system, and when you say "booked", that is the end of the negotiations in their mind. It's not like Black Friday or some other extreme happened between your PM and your MP post; you just changed your mind.

I think this line could have been written more clearly so as to avoid confusion:

"Sorry, icfund is 20 and vivek my mistake. Vamo!"

It almost seems like you forgot to write a '5' next to vivek's name in that line.

However I do think it's pretty clear what your intentions were and I would side on you owing 20%, and like others have suggested, perhaps giving him some reduced markup deals in the future to try to help make things right.

Yeah, obv that meant "and Vivek is 5" but I am typing on my fk phone do you guys not make like 1 typo per sentence, or is that just me?

Also, fwiw I am sure Vivek would be willing to post and validate the entire exchange and the fact that he was gonna buy it all, couldn't and then that I sold him 5% at the last minute, but I don't think that anyone is actually questioning the validity of the story or somehow accusing me of actually not selling the 5% to Vivek.

the problem with this is that there needs to be a precedent set where booked means booked. it will stop people from doing something such as selling 50% at 1.2 to investor A, then talking to investor B and selling 30% at 1.3, then changing the % sold to A, even though it was confirmed and booked. (obviously not saying you would do that blah blah blah, but marketplace standards need to be set. when you pm an investor saying 25% at 1.15 booked, that should mean 25% at 1.15 is booked, unless you both agree it is not.)

not sure i would make a typo when confirming/unbooking 5% in a 25K mtt. sorry

I don't really understand why you're posting these pointless hypotheticals of you busting and not demanding 5%. I mean if crisp like ran out of money and only could buy 20% and posted a random thread saying he only wanted 20% and you got set over set first hand and didn't see the thread wouldn't you want the full 25%? Likewise if you didn't see the thread and got 3rd would you give him 25% or 20%?

I don't think anyone is doubting Galen's intentions, he's a solid dude. But I don't think his intent is the only consideration here.

It's "close" in the sense that you can see things from both sides, but "not close" in the sense that when you work through the logic/accepted practices as GB just did, there's really only one outcome which is 20%.

Unless someone's going to disprove one of his premises (ultimately the point about a PM being preferable, though resonant, doesn't really directly address the issue of whether Galen has the right to reduce to 20%... which he clearly does as it happens all the time in the marketplace), it's tough to make an argument for anything else.

I think people are just grabbing onto peripheral stuff--typos, the frantic nature of quickly gathering investors, the lack of a PM--to "get at" a conclusion that simply doesn't follow from the facts.

Yeah I don't really like to get involved in these dispute threads especially when it's not obvious what the fair solution is, but I thought the missing '5' was worth pointing out because I could see how that line could be confusing to some people.

Are you just trolling at this point, or are you insinuating there is some question as to whether I sold Vivek 5%? Because if you are questioning that (which is valid, given my typo) I am pretty sure I can convince you that that's actually the case.


Well, usually sellers ship $ to the horses before the event. If that had been the case here, it would've been real simple since even if he didn't notice my thread, he would've noticed that I shipped him back 5% before the event.

Also, I didn't make up the rules (there aren't as many as there should be), but buyers cancel action all the time and their reputation suffers but as long as they do it in a public manner before the MTT, it's usually not a big deal.

Sellers cancel action before events too all the time, usually only reserved action not $ sent, and it's annoying but it happens. Their reputation takes a dent as well.


Yes, this is the primary reason that there needs to be a rule, and some method of enforcing it. Unfortunately, the precedent now is that buyers have the right to cancel and rebook action as long as they do it beforehand. It's annoying, but it happens ALL the time.

I sold to Vivek beacuse I was trying to be as honest as possible and after talking with him in person I felt like I owed him at least a small piece because I had basically agreed to buy from him, but then panicked when I couldn't get ahold of him that morning and sold to icfund.

I'm undecided on 20% or 25%, I think you're intentions we're somewhat clear so 20% must be a little ahead of 25%, but I can tell you this though, if I was buying you're action and you handled yourself the way you did, not informing me directly of what was happening, I wouldn't buy you're actions again, heater or not.

omg its "your" ffs sgiojvsiorjfisotjm

'were' tho

Sigh, I wish I got rich from poker before I graduated third grade.

To be fair, I still haven't used long division, ever. My math teacher lied to me.

Trying to understand why you're posting at all. You're not posting for opinions. You're posting saying, this is how it is, this is the precedent I declare has been set in the MP. I mean, just call it for what it is, you're posting this to get your side of the story out before crisp can post a negative post about you. I think you think you're handling this well, but I for one would be much more hesitant buying action from you as a result of this.

i could have posted a ton of stuff that was "trolling", but i havent. (Solve this staking issue for me (long, but simple))

i am not questioning if you sold to vivek. i trust vivek bought and have had a few dealings with vivek in the past in buying action/whatever.


you also seemed to have your mind made up already so not sure why you even posted. (what matt said basically)

its pretty clear that it is 20%.... If it were 25% than vivek would have freerollled 5% , because it obviously would have been only 20% given that he lost. even though no PM was sent (which is rude ) its still 20% given that vivek should never be freerolling 5%.

Uhhhhh how is Vivek ever freerolling? If he chose to sell him 5% it could've come from his personal cut not someone else's.

what does vivek have to do with this? they are 2 separate business transactions that dont have anything to do with each other.

you are a business with 25 t-shirts left. they need to be sold before 12:00. a guy who was going to buy them all is MIA and you cant contact him. a new customer agrees to buy the 25 before the deadline, the other customer is SOL.

just because you felt obligated to sell to vivek does not mean icfunds share is compromised. if you feel the need to sell to vivek it comes out of your share.

got daym dawg you should have just PMed him!

OP would have never accepted 25% from Vivek if he lost. He would have told Vivek "u owe me for 20% cuz thats what i posted in the thread before the tourney started, sorry i didnt PM u " then vivek would have said " oh okay" or even if Vivek trys to argue that he owes for 25% (which i doubt he would ) OP would not have accepted 25%. Therefore it would be a 5% freeroll for Vivek if he were to get 25% on OP winning