People who say "for sure" without considering why the other side might have a case are pretty tilting.

i insta re-considered, but you insta-quoted. you're fast buddy.

I think this is where you're wrong Galen. You're citing marketplace rules when this business deal didn't take place in the marketplace. It was a private deal where you both agreed that he had 25% of you. So what you post in a public forum doesn't matter because you had handled this matter privately thus you need to contact him privately to alter the deal. You can't just alter the deal from your end without him agreeing to it.

I'm not questioning your integrity or anything but I think you owe him 25%.

Todd Terry makes a good point...you seem to believe that you could unbook all of his action 30 seconds before you register (what if this was 30 seconds before late-reg ended?) but there is absolutely no way he could get away with the same action. There is a double standard there that should be addressed as a marketplace rule in the future but that's an entirely separate matter because this didn't take place in the marketplace.

Pushing aside personal views on the topic, is anyone else a little surprised the community seems so polar opposite in their opinions on this? I'm just not used to so many seeing something white as black and black as white, it's usually a vast majority on one side in agreement.

Without saying one way or the other, I personally thought this would be more one sided. I'm not sure as to what exactly that says but I would guess it at least hints towards us needing stricter standards and more explicit rules.

Heres my hypothetical
20.5% imo

10% tax on any % change done by a player once booked. Unless player cancels entire package; then no tax.

He dropped 5% of his players share thus he owes them .5% of his own equities

My opinion shouldn't mean too much, and i am on the seller side more often than the buyer side.... but buyers back out all the time and players have little recourse. I dont think players should be able to skate-free here, but the penalty has to be very very low when a good guy is acting in good faith with several backing relationships over a period of time.

A better question than 20 vs 25 is if you had the right at all to make a change on an amount you booked with an investor especially since you didn't try to hard to communicate with him about it.

The Marketplace standards are relevant not because this transaction took place in the Marketplace but because action-selling standards in the poker community are relevant.

good post and I tend to agree here.

Thx for making it easy on me Jordan

Eat it to save your reputation you free-rolled yourself. Pay up in full like someone who got drunk, played well, and lost a CL pot in a live tourney. If you don't I could see people reneging on your action the same way you are trying to.

25k to keep your track record completely unharmed. 12.5 and your still the guy who reneged on action. Pay in full and you won't regret it.

I think this is a confirmed 20% in general but you have to keep the investors happy.

Galen definitely freerolled himself with this exchange. Definitely think he should eat the 5% given how he handled it.

Galen didn't freeroll at all. If he had busted, he 100% would have told the ICFund that they only had 20% and that they owed less. ICFund obviously would instantly agree and not force pay Galen and say "if you won we would have this huge debate blah blah blah!"

I do not care about the standards at all. I didn't read the thread, I guess its different if Galen posted in another thread.

Standards are different for different people. Galen is special. He won the PCA and paid it off. He is 100% trustworthy. There is no angleshooting going on.

Clearly, in his head, he thought he was completely in his rights to take 5% away from ICFund and give it to vivek. (it benefitted him even because ICFund was working with credit.)

I agree that this move is idiotic. I wouldn't make this move. And he's just being a ******ed tourney player that wanted to be tight with WPT champion vivek so he can be part of the circle jerk later. He should admit as much.

However, the only one doing the freerolling is ICFund here.

Got into ******ed debates in the Tmay thread too on this concept so I'm just going to give it up. I only do business/enter contracts with people i 100% trust....for situations like this. If you trust Galen to not angleshoot, then there is 0 freerolling going on, and obviously **** happens where you have to move % around last minute sometimes to move money. (to be butt buddies w/ vivek shouldn't be one but w/e besides the point.)

Obviously, in pure contract w/e he owes the 25%....but if ICFund trusts galen....that they would have only paid 20% if he lost....why are they being all results oriented? The debate should just be whether or not sellers have the right to cancel %s....and you won't get a unilateral response on that because the answer is IT DEPENDS. In this case, because of the previous post and galen's rep..it doesn't depend...he clearly thought it was in his right and wasn't acting shady at all...posted in thread....20% good fight good night.

very well put and this sums up why it has to be 20%

I think scary tiger is saying (or at least this is what I'm saying) that galen gave himself a negative freeroll, but that that's the consequence of being dumb with how you book your action. which is how I felt about the tmay thing as well.

personally I think 15k is a fair settlement for both sides, but whatever

Im meeting girl for internet date this weekend, we text tonight, she says lets make a bet on the tampa boston game - tampa wins I buy first round, Boston wins she buys, I say sure booked.


If I post a thread in the mp saying I decided to bet against vivek instead is everything cool when I show up to meet her on Friday?

What?

20% but you should have sent him a text or pm notifying him of the change.

Yeah, I realized after I stepped away from the computer that I meant Galen definitely freerolled crisp on this exchange.

wait, you said 'yeah' but then said the opposite of what I posted, haha

edit: I guess it's due to the somewhat ambiguous usage of freerolled. who was freerolling?

Sigh, I mean like Galen was giving crisp a 5% equity freeroll in the tournament unintentionally.

So u think crisp has a claim to 25% and is owed 25%?
Or hes freerolling for +5%... or nothing (being 20%)... and there no in between at this point?
Be more specific please

we sayin the same thing like a synonym. wasn't really spittin game i was scrimmagin' my penmanship so hard it needs censorship.

crisp has a claim to 25% and is owed 25% despite the fact that he was only going to have to pay for a 20% share if Galen didn't cash.

Just stop posting

I don't think Vivek bets on Hockey

Consolidated points that I agree with...All of the issues of precedent that are argued here in the marketplace are only partially relevant. This is because there are few if any actual legal repercussions to doing business on here and potentially screwing over another person. The only thing that allows the marketplace to operate smoothly is the trust between players, and Galen and ICM Fund are obviously trusted given their track records. I think this is a misunderstanding and Galen could have handled it a lot better, but people claiming that him not paying ICM 5% would in any way damage his reputation are absurd.

Galen should probably give up some kind of good faith offering for not communicating when changing a deal, but that is of course on him to consider.