1.) That's a brutal marketplace policy to begin with but this exchange happened through PMs and does not apply.

2.) I don't think it's as simple as "more people said 20 so that's clearly right." As others have said, there is a bias because there are more sellers than buyers in the mp. Fatal error, funki munki, yellowsub, thorladen, and gboro are all prominent members of the poker world and disagree that 20% is the obvious answer here. I think their opinion should have more weight than randoms.

3.) I don't understand how you can unilaterally propose a fix to a problem you created and end with "hopefully he accepts that and can move on." Crisp wants the 25% and rightly so. It's pretty ridiculous that just because you are in possession of the money, you are basically forcing him to take a deal he doesn't want. That is why the money should be escrowed and some sort of mediation/negotiation can take place without someone having the upper hand.

In order to try and make Galen pay 25% here I think there needs to be marketplace rules that state something like that was wrong....as I believe Galen didn't even think twice that anything was wrong with what he did because of the leniency of booking and unbooking action on both buyer and sellers in this marketplace.

The only reason this situation stands out is because Galen cashed for 600k and the buyer wants the original booked 25% when Galen made a confirmation thread saying he only had 20% before the tourney. The only thing you can base your decision on in my opinion is the current practices of the marketplace and the unorganized rules. Do other buyers and sellers book and then unbook action prior to tournies?? Yes all the time. I think Galen handled the situation poorly without communication to the investor but i don't think he angled or did anything against common practice here.

If you are gonna try to punish Galen for changing booked action prior to the tourney then do it for every seller or buyer that has previously unbooked action prior to a tourney. It shouldn't be a double standard just because a guy cashes for 600k. I think there is way too much money involved in this marketplace to not have a player panel or set rules as well and the recent confusion in a cpl threads should make this obvious.

I saw it late night on Friday 20th May..

The original contract is valid and was created privately outside of the MP. The variation needs to be confirmed, it wasn't.

Although I think legally it's 25%, poker standards lean towards 20% + 'idiot tax'.

This deal had nothing to do with the marketplace...thats what makes things very different. Marketplace standards etc etc etc have nothing to do with this deal. If 2 guys meet in the lobby of Harrah's and agree on a 25% share in the main event and shake on a booked deal....do you honestly think that if the player makes some thread in the marketplace prior to the tourney that he has unilateral ability to change the therms just because he posted something on the internet yet never even tried to get in touch with the backer?

+1

How do they have nothing to do with this deal when the original ad was put in the Marketplace, and 2+2 was used for the duration of the deal?

Not sure you're completely following whats going on here....try to catch up before contributing.

I read every single post ITT. Saying that this deal has "nothing to do with the Marketplace" is very naive, IMO.

Please elaborate what you mean by "the original ad was placed in marketplace" then if you are so well informed.

Not to pile on Galen....but in his original post in this thread he writes...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...mation-1037929

In this thread, I explicitly confirm everyone's shares before I start playing, which I always do, so I can avoid any confusion. With all my threads, I always have lots of people reserving and buying or swapping or whatever, and so no matter what I always try to make a final confirmation before I play.

Except for the fact that for the $25keuro Madrid tourney I asked him explicity if he would be selling shares outside of his marketplace thread, he answered directly "No, and if I do I'll post all relevant info in this thread." Well, what happened is that he never posted side action, never posted an updated list of who had his action before the tourney began, as he 'always does', and told us at the end of the tourney that he had oversold himself by accident only leaving himself 15% equity instead of the 21% he said he'd have of himself. The excuse "Oops sorry" is BS, especially when he was asked directly to post all relevant info on selling shares on the side in the thread prior to the tourney.

These kinds of errors, while seemingly innocent, are not ok when making business transactions of this magnitude. It seems that just as in madrid, Galen took a lax attitude to a business deal with potentially 6 figures on the line, and is now paying the price for HIS mistake.

Fine, so he PM'd people before he posted in the Marketplace. However, he used the Marketplace for confirmation purposes, here and regardless, he used 2+2 for the majority of the transactions. So it isn't really the same as making a deal while standing in Harrah's.

This is why I think some regs should come to together and decide on concrete rules, since buyers and sellers seem to have very different conceptions of how the Marketplace works.

Only briefly read it before, after looking at everything, it is definitely a legally enforceable contract entitling crisp to 25%.

Tricky situation now as the amount of money involved makes legal action worth pursuing in a vacuum; obviously crisp may wish not to do that to preserve the opportunity of future stakes with Galen and everyone else who disagrees in MP. If crisp is willing to compromise I would snap accept.

**Being objective here, I would have liked to have said it was 20% because Galen seems like a really good guy and is the sickest.**

25% and neither of the backers should be taking a hit.

If a seller is a stand-up guy and by mistake sells 150% I would expect him to pay out 150% (even if it takes years) because it's his mistake and we should all man up and not expect other people to bail us out when we mess up.

The agreement was explicit, think this is simple.

I don't know any of the parties to this and have only bought/sold small shares before but have done deals for cars, computers, businesses, property and stuff for plenty in businesses where your word is your primary asset.

I have to correct this because you are so far off base. First, you say "how do MP standards not matter when the original ad was placed in MP" Just flat out wrong misrepreseting everything in this thread(Not sure how you could say something like that if you actualy read every post itt but whatever) - then you blow past that point when corrected as if its not really a big deal one way or the other - its a very big deal.

Then you say "he used the MP for confirmation pruposes" - NO, again... flat out wrong. He used the market place in order to attempt to change a booked bet done via pm - having nothing to do with the MP - and never directly contacted his backer.

If Galen had posted a thread in "internet poker" changing the terms of his bet with crisp would it matter? Obviously not. If Galen posted something on his blog prior to the tourney would it matter? Obviously not. Just because he posted something in the marketplace doesn't mean it holds any more weight than if he had posted it in the MTT community. One side of a privately booked bet can't just post something on the internet for record - and think because he made things clear prior to the tourney (even though no communication with the other party took place) that everything is cool and the other party must accept the new terms. Honestly, even though no angling was even close to going on, how is it fair to crisp that Galen assumes that if he posts something anywhere on the internet for record prior to the tourney crisp is forced to accept those changes and doesn't even have to be notified?

Also, how does using the 2+2 pm feature to book a deal have anything to do with the market place? I'm sure there are tons of people that have booked %'s or traded shares via PM that have never bought or sold action in the MP....so all of a sudden they have to be at the mercy of MP regs for some reason? Deals negotiated and booked via pm have absolutely nothing to do with the MP - that's the crucial point that needs to be recognized here.

I'm not advocating for 25%, as I think crisp should give him some kind of break considering the intentions were pure - but I really don't think he is obligated to take 20% for Galen's assumptive mistakes. I've said my peace and hope it works out for both parites involved, GL.

LOL, the thread is called: "25.5k bellagio wpt confirmation," and in addition to changing crip's %, he also confirmed other shareholders. This has everything to do with the Marketplace. Firstly, because he used the Marketplace, and secondly, if two Marketplace regs agree on a deal on 2+2, even if the discussion is done via PM, Marketplace rules should still apply. (Since you can only make these types of deals, technically, if you're Marketplace Approved). Your argument is basically that Max Katz isn't bound by MP rules since a lot of his buying is done via PM. That's absurd.

Anyway I don't know why you think I side with Galen, when I never said what I thought, only that rules should be made going forward to avoid this type of situation.

Jesus...just because he called it "confirmation" doesn't mean he was confirming anything.....there was no confirmation needed - he was changing the already confirmed bet. He should have called it "Confirming that I am changing a booked bet done via pm without consulting the other party". Galen didn't feel the need to confirm everyone's shares for the 25k madrid tourney....yet he feels the need to "confirm for this tourney" and just coincidentally is changing the terms at the same time? Nothing about their bet used the market place.

Look at the thread, he was confirming the rest of the shares. Anyway this is totally tangential so we should probably stop.

GL getting this fixed.

Final note, I understand what youre saying....but where I disagree is that there is a vast difference between starting a thread in the marketplace and letting everyone know you reserve the right to buy back shares prior to a tourney....and hitting someone up via pm and asking them to buy 25% of you in a $25k tourney - agreeing that the action is booked - and then assuming you can just post something anywhere on the internet for record changing those terms prior to the tourney without letting the other party know - and that they are bound to whatever you stipulate.

Correct -- this entire thread is about whether a seller can cancel booked action. That's basically the main question.

blah edited- I'm beginning to rant - good luck to both of you.

Agree with most of Eddie's points. Not to mention, I see no precedent where it's okay to changing terms 5 minutes before a tournament begins. I imagine there'd be some pretty pissed off players sitting down to tables if buyers are backing out and changing terms at the very last second like Galen did here.

Hmmm... 5000 hits. Almost 200 posts. And a mod has yet to say a word. Why? Because the deal was done outside the MP through unregulated channels...It's the wild west where we set the rules. God bless 2p2 and the MP. Bobo and all the mods are kicking back munching on popcorn watchin the community do their job drinkin a well deserved beer. Cheers!

why do mods need to step in, we've got shmoo101 on the case

edit: no opinion actually

i first thought 20%, but sub makes a good point as well