She needs to confirm or deny that this is the staking deal. If she does I will run the analysis and there is absolutely no need for this thread because I'd be happy to show all the data, as long as she agrees that the terms of this stake are correct.

Fair enough?

this is so way out of bounds.

she approached me for a stake and I told her the only way I could take one was a cashout schedule on the winning weeks. I would not have taken it otherwise. It adds variance to her as long as I promise not to leave in MU. It was the only way I could play and I told her that. I wasn't tricking her. I was telling her the truth. If she didn't understand the deal, it's not my responsibility

what about the weekly 50-100$ cost of living stipend that gets added to the makeup?

that's the unusual bit on a sub-$1000 br stake

I agree with you and I left it open for three years and consider that a "reasonable" amount of time.

it's only on the winning weeks, so you need to parse the data by week and calculate each weeks profit

if you do the analysis I will be more than happy to abide and I will remit any monies owed but the makeup should be considered expired

is that fair enough to everyone?

at this point I think it's best if a third party did the analysis

I will do it on my own but I want it confirmed.

there is no statute of limitations on makeup

You know as well as I so there can be no independent analysis because of several factors, not the least of which is me not recalling the exact specifics of what MTTs or SNGs you were allowed to play at any given time. You have never even stated the buyins or games you recall being allowed to play, which surely must have been part of this mysterious analysis you performed that you won't show anyone that magically states you owe me barely a quarter or less (suspending on what you're in) of the stake roll, which we agree on to within $50, and I'm willing to use your figure ($900).

However, by your own posts and emails you have admitted the following:

1. You owe me $900 dollars. That was the amount of the stake we're using.

2. You did not think you were in MU, nor did either of us reference you being in MU, in May/June of 2011, when both of our memories should have been relatively clear. This indicates that any money owed me was either profit (which I've already stipulated it isn't, we were even within a week or so of BF) or stake money.

3. That at some point you received money from PS that included the full $900, and you did not give it to me. When you got it and what you did with it I have no idea, you change your story more than you change your underwear, but we both acknowledge I didn't get it.

My case has already been made. All this discussion about MU is just a smoke screen.

the cashout protocol was as follows

$100 split 50/50 in weeks profit $100-199
$200 split 50/50 weeks in profit $200+

the deal was open ended, split of the total profits over the life of the stake

no leaving in makeup

and I want her to first confirm that this is indeed the deal she agreed to

then she still owns it, though I'm pretty sure a "reasonable" amount of time is std

there is def precedent ITF so I will abide by precedent

once again you don't remember anything, so you really can't say what the deal was or even what you were staking me for, and somehow you still have credibility

first you wanted an analysis, now that you are afraid it might go against you, you don't want one

how about if you shut up and stop incriminating yourself and let SA do the data work on it, and see what you have

you still have MU, which I'm going to ask the community how to handle

I'm not afraid of an analysis. Anyone who wants to try can feel free.

I'm just saying it's meaningless because the parameters aren't established.

"Hey can you analyze this for me?"

"Sure, what were the dates and what games was he playing?

"Well I have the dates but not the games."

"So what am I supposed to analyze."

*crickets*

That said, if anyone wants to try they can have at it.

And I don't remember everything, I freely admit that.

What I do remember, I state. What I don't, I acknowledge.

What I don't do is make up easily disproven lies like "she changed the conditions after she was modded and I was too scared to do or say anything."

i'll do an honest independent analysis using sharkscope and information you guys give me, but could you post your stars screen name so i can take a look at the volume before i agree to do hours of work for nothing?

and a transaction log from pokerstars from one of you for the transfers between you two would be great. i know you can both get one just by emailing support@pokerstars.eu and asking for a player audit. you guys can both edit out the non pertinent transactions in paint

Finally, SA can do any analysis he wants and I'll accept it.

heheh

Unreal_Zeal

once you figure out what the balance is we can deal with it, I can assure you Nicole will be paid promptly. The makeup we will decide what to do with using forum precedent

SGTRJ can provide all the dates, if you have any questions please feel free to ask me

thanks SA I really appreciate it

Well with the caveat that the stake was a pure 50/50 profit split. When he was out of MU, all profits were 50/50 exactly.

Precedent is returning the stake to the staker, not cashing it out and ducking them for a couple of years.

You're acting like a POS. Just pay her the ****ing money you owe her. She thought enough of you invest in you and give you a chance to earn money. In return, you jacked her and went MIA.

ok what date are we agreeing that the staking arrangement started?

12/4/10 to 4/15/11.

you dropped MTTs at some point nicole, I think it may have been 4/7/11. I've been up for two days sweating this so I'll just trust you to find it but the day after you dropped them, I sold action in MP, so it should be the day before my first MTT selling action thread

Was that before or after I was modded.

this is correct, it was a chop of all profits 50/50 at termination

I admit I have not read everything in this thread but I think I see what Jeff is getting at with what he believes the staking arrangement was. It's definitely not standard so I can see why people would be confused by it. I am not claiming this was the actual agreement, I'm just explaining what I *think* Jeff believes the arrangement to be.

Maybe he can verify for me whether or not this is right:

His intention was that at the end of every week, if a profit was made that week, then it would be split by the schedule he posted above (a variable amount depending on the amount of profit)

This would happen whether the stake, OVERALL, was in profit or not. If the stake was in profit, no problem. If it wasn't, then the "profit split" for that week would be added to the makeup.

So if there were a bunch of weeks where the stake OVERALL was not in profit, but the week showed a profit, then those would accrue makeup.

No, you paid out profit splits weekly as you made profit and were not in MU. Hence the transfers from you to me in the transaction report.

3/12/11 is when you dropped MTTs