justin's got the best post in this thread.
bakes should definitely show matt/mediators the chat log and it's pointless to argue without seeing it. but it seems really clear to me that bakes was NOT attempting to freeroll matt and that if he had bricked out and matt had come up to him offering cash bakes would have said 'oh you weren't on the list I thought we canceled'

I pick bakes' side.

Let's say he didn't cash and afterwards he'd come on AIM asking when his $5K's due? I think in a lot of situations people would (even if u deny it now, it would've been an easy bail out) just go and say they didn't pay, meaning they didn't want the 10%

how are people taking bakes side so blindly knowing that he wont release the chatlog? why the hell wouldnt he show it if he was right? if it was booked it doesnt matter when op paid him ffs this is a poker discussion were talking about here right? with poker players? and you guys are saying hes ****ed because he owed him the money and didnt pay yet. LKSAJFLASUTO3ISAFLK

poker players owe each other thousands everyday and 90% of the time (the respected ones) pay it off when they can and thats insanely understood. what probably happened here is bakes forgot about it because matt never sent the money and now doesnt want to pay. plain and simple the chatlog determines this and its really fishy that bakes wont release it. anything anyone else besides bakes or matt is fairly useless. if the action was booked then it doesnt matter when matt pays yes its bad that he didnt do it when he said he would but that defiantly should not cancel the booked action. (as long as its not like "if you want it send it by xxx")

Are we sure bakes has the chat log? I dont know either side, but his silence is definitely not good for his side of the argument ...

also how are people using the arguement that if bakes didnt cash matt would have some defense that he didnt owe the money because he never sent it? do those words actually make sense to you? matt accepted the action HE OWES THE MONEY oh but wait he didnt send it so he umm....doesnt? wtf is wrong with some of you?

Consider the time invested in this argument and thread and the bad blood created, then consider how little time and effort could have made the matter clear. This is a good lesson in how not to do a deal.

jinzerd i agree with ur posts, the only thing that makes it fishy is that matt said "ill have it by tomorrow at the latest" and then didn't get it by that time and didn't call or text bakes to explain why or to tell him he would just pay him in cash in vegas. After not coming through by the expected time he could have simply contacted bakes to rearrange the time of payment, and avoided the whole issue.

like i said its obviously bad that matt didn't pay when he said he would but that doesn't mean he doesn't still owe the money that argument is ridiculous.

If Bakes sold all the action he wanted to other people instead - people who could be bothered to communicate, clearly book, and pay upfront - then Matt's already-pathetic case is even weaker, imo.

I don't see how you two can meet somewhere in between. Either you get the full amount or don't get anything at all. Having read your initial post, most jurors would take bake's side on this one.

I think it would actually be very reasonable for Bakes to just realize it was poor communication on both ends, and help to settle the dispute by coming to some sort of compromise.

Why doesnt bakes pay Matt a percentage based on how often he (or some arbitrator(s)) thinks Matt would have freerolled him. Matt would probably have freerolled close to 100/0 most likely so you would probably have to use a theoretical sample of people with similar standing in the community. So we'll say for example 15/25 buyers would have paid bakes after he lost and 10 would have forgot or purposely not paid bakes (either cuz they just didnt want to or because they thought the action wasnt booked). Bakes pays Matt 25k or w/e it was times 60%.

I don't really think either of them deserves 100/0 of the money since they both didn't communicate very well and its a pretty murky situation, but both are respected community members. Not sure if my example is the best way to split the money or not but just a thought.

-Mike

Yeesh, what a mess. One word: Arbitration. Find a panel of high stakes players you both trust, present the evidence, and stand by what they say. (And when you do, leave all bad blood behind.)

Not that it makes any difference, but here are my thoughts. Unless the chat log clearly says, 100%: "Booked", then I'd probably rely on Bakes' intent. I'd like to see more information, but according to ZeeJustin, Bakes sold everything not including Matt's share. Given that, and the general trustworthiness of both parties, I would have to assume that had Bakes not cashed and Matt came to him with the money, Bakes would have said "no, keep it, you had no action." If I were arbiting, I'd dig into why Bakes won't supply the chat log. [In my dealings with other poker players, I've always trusted their intent. Even in much less clear situations than this. I've both been paid, and paid up, when I thought I had no action (because the player was clear he thought I did.)]

Those of you who are saying Matt's case is pathetic or weak have no clue what you're talking about though. As many here have said, among well trusted people, word is bond. If you tell me you're buying 5% of my action in some tournament and we say "booked", then you owe it to me, whether you pay right away, or after the event, or whatever. And you have 5% in any case.

(Disclaimer: I bought a piece of Matt in his WSOP events this year.)

The only thing pathetic about my case is that I do not have the evidence(chat logs) proving that we booked the action, not reserved it.

Obviously everyone is free to post their opinion, but if your argument is just "you didnt send the money before the tournament so you dont have action", then you really dont know much about piece buying or staking and probably shouldnt post your thoughts.

This is very reasonable. It seems bakes thinks that since he is holding the money in question that he gets to make the final decision which is just absurd

all of this

So, let's say that you show up at the window at the Kentucky Derby, and you tell the agent that you want to bet $20,000 on a certain horse at 20:1. But, then, you realize that you forgot your cash, and you tell him that you'll be right back.

You get you cash and show up at the window a couple of minutes after the race ends, you see that your horse won, and you tell the same agent, "I'm back with my cash. My horse won. Pay me my $400k (minus your $20k bet amount).

And the response that you'll get is: *****

Because the info the OP provided is evidence enough to see he isn't owed anything ainec.

Bakes said he would sell a share, mattg said he would pay the next day at the latest. Mattg didn't therefor breaching the agreement. Bakes is under no obligation to assume the deal has been altered without notification. You can't just honor parts of the agreement, it's all or nothing and if any terms are breached it's all worthless.

Had Mattg attempted to contact Bakes and told him he would like to change the payment terms then Bakes could choose to agree which would be a new contract or he could reject entirely.

Let's say Bakes wanted to sell 40% of his buy-in. The day of the event he's either collected that 40% from investors or extended them credit knowing they would pay.

Whatever investors didn't pay Bakes is going to have to front himself.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Bakes wouldn't extend credit to someone that he doesn't know well enough to exchange phone numbers with.

This is completely different than 2 players trading action without exchanging money right there. In that scenario it's an equitable trade, in this scenario it's not.

OP screwed up by not following through with sending the payment when he said he would and he didn't try and fix the problem before the event started.

Also, if Bakes didn't cash I don't think OP would have any responsibility to pay either.

OP went shopping, found something he liked, told the cashier to set it off to the side and he'd be right back to pay for it. Three weeks later he's pissed that they didn't continue to hold it.

I'm sure there might be room for leeway but only if the two had a decent history together which it's obvious they don't.

Move on OP, you didn't do what you said, there's no reason to expect Bakes to do what he said.

POST THE CHAT LOG.
Seriously.

Or at least, Bakes, explain why you're not going to. Otherwise, just looks incriminating.

its funny that you have to know its a stupid comparison but yet you still posted it ahhh the greatness of 2p2.

Okay forget the point that you didn't pay the money.

A greater point is that if Bakes has clearly sold all the action he wants to other people, it surely overrides your claim. There is no 10% left to give you because he has paid it out to other people who staked him instead.

Or you expect him to now give you money out of his own cut, and so have sold a higher percentage of his action than he ever would have agreed to?

yeah, except no one knows how much he intended to sell in the first place. So absent some sort of evidence like an email where he clearly states that he wants to find stakers for, let's say, 40%, we're still left guessing.

You had 3 weeks man. Just think about how long 21 days is. Bakes is right and it's not even close.

If the action were 100% booked, you would have worded your OP much differently.

Seems to me like Bakes is handling this like a child. I understand that 20k is a lot of money, but coming off a win I would expect someone who a lot of us look up to to handle this like an adult.

Being a hardass is one thing but being an unreasonable prick is another.

seriously can anyone who took bakes side give a reasonable reason why he wont release the chatlog if he is in the right here?