Sucks for red pros. Can't see how they could possibly owe any money tho if they were lucky enough to sell the acct

Right, the ppl getting ****ed are the red pros by the DOJ (as well as other minor affiliates). If a red pro sold their balance, they shouldn't be obligated to make any settlement with the buyer just because the DOJ decided to treat them in a separate way from other FTP accounts. Not figuring out that red pro accounts could end up being different from other FTP accounts is a failure on the buyer's part to price the asset they bought correctly. It's a very unexpected way to lose on a deal, and totally sucks for the buyer (and I feel sorry for anyone who bought a red pro account, must be worse life tilt ever), but that doesn't mean they can welch on their contract.

For those who bought FTP balances of red pros and want their money back, I heard viffer is eligible for hire to represent

So did he joke list his account as like Italy or Brazil or something to look like a fish? I actually know one guy who did that pre BF and just relocated when FTP opened and got his money back no problem. In your case, I guess if FTP never got paid back he would not have known that his account was ROW. So, I think you can buy him a dinner or send him a bottle of wine or something. Nice buy though.

He sold the account in June, when the DOJ had appointed the GCG. It was really really unlikely that U.S accounts wouldn't get any money back (unless he was a red pro or affiliate or similar). He would have found out. Tricky spot though, nfi what you should do.

Man this is just so ridiculous it makes me wanna puke

Espec for you since this is possibly the 3rd (?) time in your career you get screwed for 6 figures ? As a ROW player I've ridden the rollercoaster ride till relaunch and I aged probably 10 years during that period. I can only imagine how you must feel right now. Really hope this will turn out well for you.....

Well said. I also think all these "reasonable steps" have to be at buyers expense, after all the idea of selling was to be financially independen of what was gonna happen. (never sold or bought FTP)

give him his vig back if US doesn't get paid. otherwise a handjob seems reasonable.

The Golden Ticket P,NP, and the search for the impossible.

Great read! very Interesting!

It seems everyone agrees that a red pro seller owes nothing. I'm curious though, on peoples thoughts on a situation that is in a greyer area. Lets say a seller owes back taxes/child support or whatever and has his balance withheld. Does he owe anything?

Heuristics and Biases by the same author as Thinking Fast and Slow is basically exactly what you are looking for, though if you have already read the book you mentioned then I guess it's kind of pointless. The point is that it's the same subject matter but written from a more technical point of view.

If he claimed his winnings as income but never received them, he may be in a position to adjust his income figures and owe less in back taxes. I don't really have any idea how child support works.

In any case, this doesn't really have anything to do with the case of someone who sold his account. Back taxes and child support are not specifically and directly contingent on being paid his FTP balance.

if he owes child support and doj withheld, the buyer should receive 100%. i don't see why the buyer should be paying for his child. It's different than rakeback in which the seller receives zero benefit and child support in which he receives a benefit (no longer owing child support)

Are they not contingent though?

"Prior to the payment of funds to a Petitioner, GCG will provide the Petitioner’s Social Security or other Taxpayer Identification Number to the Government, in order to offset and collect any qualifying debts currently listed in the Treasury Offset Program Database."

i don't see how this is a gray area at all.
thats like saying he gets his account back but owes another player $$$.

his other debts have no bearing.

I see where RosaParks is coming from and the seller may have to be responsible he can't withdraw his balance due to overdue taxes/child support.

thats absolutely absurd.

its not like the seller was going to get out of paying the IRS if he never got his FTP so basically he gets to use that $$$ to send to IRS n square his debt then keep the money he got from the guy who bought his FTP account???

why didn't he just use the $$$ he got from selling his FTP account to pay the IRS?

i dunno it just seems like the shadiest **** of all time to be like oh sorry they're using my FTP funds to pay off my debt so can't get you that money i promised you.

*i have neither bought nor sold any FTP $.

I agree with rbk, account holder is still responsible to pay his account balance over. Just because he has other creditors that can force him to pay first doesn't mean he didn't actually get his balance.

We have a poker player name Joe. He has $10,000 in his FTP account. He sold after BF at a massive discount for $2,000.

When Joe tries to claim his balance from the government to pay the buyer, the government gives him a generic explanation that explains he can't get his money.

How much time/effort can the buyer expect the seller to pursue this to get the money back? Keep in mind that it's not in the seller's best interest to keep digging for a clear exact reason why he can't withdraw money, especially if he has back taxes or child support. How many man hours and how much legal fees does the seller is expected to go through?

Remember, the balance was sold at a massive discount for a reason. The trade was made based on the assumption that getting full value of the balance is really low and there are massive risks.

*I don't sell/buy FTP currency. Just wanted to play devil's advocate*

This isn't the same though. The seller didn't get the money and then decide to give it to someone else. It was taken from him. Maybe he had no intention of paying the IRS, maybe he intended to pay them in 5 years.

The argument that I'm alluding to is that when you buy someones FTP balance, you're buying whatever the DOJ gives them. The chance that the IRS would garnish their balance should have been assessed in the price you bought it at.

I should state that I neither bought nor sold FTP funds and I don't even necessarily disagree with you. I do think its a grey area though.

the buyer should do everything in his power to make it as easy as possible for the seller. he should be responsable for all legal fees (prettly clearly imo, for the reason I gave in my previous post) and if necessary handle forwarded emails etc. and type out responses and arguments. the seller should only have to take care of the things that have to be done by him personally (sending the actual email for example). of course if we are only talking about 20 min of writing a few emails a genourous seller is still going to do that but I don't think the buyer has a right to insist on it.

hmm ok i see your point. i still think he owes the $$ but its def not as shady as i first thought (assuming its like you say and he flat out doesn't have the $$ to pay it back).

as for legal fees etc i don't think he should be required to pay $$ out of pocket and get a lawyer etc.
thats part of the reason he sold it at a discount in the 1st place.
if the buyer wants him to pursue legal action imo he not only needs to provide the funds to do so but has to do most of the legwork to recover it.

ok so hypothetical:

eric lindgren sells his FTP balance of 1mil for .40 (before all his sportsbetting stuff came out).

flash forward to the present and he's filed bankruptcy and has agreement with the court to partially repay his creditors (for the sake of the hypothetical pretend he is not affiliated with FTP in anyway)

now he files his remission petition and his balance is correct however he is told that his 1mil is being sent to the bankruptcy court to be distributed to his creditors as per the bankruptcy ruling.

is the buyer of his funds SOL (i mean OBV he WOULD be sol, but would HSNL think he was owed the $$$)

I think it comes down to whether his buyers had relatively same info Eric had at the time of the sale (e.g. his finances are in decent enough shape that him filing for bankruptcy in 2 years is an unforeseen event vs him already owing IRS millions and privately settling for some sort of payment plan)

if the word on the street is that he owes everyone and their grandma money when he sells the balance, then the purchase price should already reflect an increased chance of buyer never collecting

After PS was given permission by the DOJ to repay it's US customers shortly after Black Friday, I think the assumption was that the FTP repayment process of US players would not go through the DoJ. It'd either be through FTP after it took on investors or from whatever company bought FTP.

I'd imagine most balances were sold between Black Friday and the moment we all knew that the US remissions process was going to have to go through the DoJ.

I believe in those cases the buyer is SOL if the seller isn't able to recover b/c the DoJ/IRS/some US govt branch is withholding the money for x reason. The onus was on the buyer to price the asset accordingly given all the possible scenarios of both the remission process and the credibility of the seller (not just to pay back the money once received, but also not be involved in anything shady that could prevent repayment).

If the seller sold his FTP balance after it was clear the government would be involved in the remissions process b/c he had things like unpaid child support and back taxes hanging over his head and figured things might get sticky and failed to reveal that to the buyer then I believe he defrauded the buyer and owes what he received in the sale back to the buyer.