correct and I explained to her that this is the only way I could take a deal from her

I never dropped all MTT action. I simply didn't have you in all MTTs you might have played.

ok so what day did you guys settle on? was it always a saturday?

Also thanks for clarifying his interpretation of the MU thing.

No, that's not what I agreed to. If the stake was in MU, even if the week was in profit, he should not have been withdrawing any money. The only time he could access money was if the stake was in profit and we had done our weekly split. Then he could do whatever he wanted with his share of the profit.

Lol that I would provide a revolving credit line. He soft begged for a stake for months. He wasn't turning down free money.

No, there was no set day. I tried but it varied some depending on schedule. It was roughly once a week, there were a few times it took a few days longer than that.

Yeah, this is what he wants us to believe that he believes, as far as I can tell, at the moment.

He's been all over the place ITT, and his emails and posts don't consistently align with this current narrative.

Also there was never any variable amount of profit splitting. There was MU and a 50/50 split of profits.

I'm out for tonight. SA if you need more info from me let me know and I'll get it to you sometime tomorrow.

but this is what she agreed to and she tried to change the deal from the get go, and she's still trying to change it even in this thread

this is going to be the main crux of the argument because if that's what she agreed to, then all of the 900 is MU. At some point I allowed her to change it and that would put her profit at 235, which I've offered again and again to drop the matter. She's using the forum as a bully pulpit to lie, cheat and steal imo.

she's already lied numerous times ITT and claims to not remember the deal and not remember the terms or even what she staked me for, yet she posts that I'm stealing from her and nothing to back up that statement

she has no credibility at all IMO, and I think this thread proves she should have revoked MP privileges and be de-modded

this the saturday-friday 7day breakdown

lmk if there are any errors

At any rate, the MU discussion is pointless.

I never would have allowed him access to stake funds if the stake itself was not in profit. If he was doing so, it was without my knowledge or knowing consent.

But it's irrelevant because he wasn't in MU on Black Friday. He knows this - he made reference to owing profit in the emails after BF, and I didn't get profit splits unless the stake was out of MU.

Why in the world would I take no profit while the stake was in MU but allow him to withdraw stake funds while it was in MU? That doesn't make any goddamn sense.

monday

SA, you do realize he played tournaments and cash games that weren't covered by the stake right?

Just making sure. I didn't have every single bit of his poker action.

there are a lot of rebuy tournaments and sharkscope estimates the rebuys so i'm starting to think this won't work

Jeff, if that's what I agreed to, then you lied or grossly deceived me when we hashed it out. I agreed to 50/50 profits splits when the stake was not in MU. I made zero dollars on weeks where you were in profit but the stake was still in MU. Your bizarre contention that I would let you withdraw money while I was making nothing is patently absurd.

I wanted to help you play poker, and that was it. You bragged constantly about how much you made for other backers. You soft begged for the stake for months, and when I finally caved, you ran off with the stake money when BF gave you the chance.

There is no universe in which I would have knowingly agreed to give you access to stake funds while the stake was in MU.

But you weren't in MU on BF.

And no, this has nothing to do with being pissed because you weren't very profitable. If you had given me back the stake money when PS paid you out, I would have given you any recommendation you wanted despite your many violations of the stake agreement. You were up, and $420 is better than zero so sure I would have liked to have made more but I wasn't upset or mad that you didn't.

Now I really am out.

Thanks for any help SA but given our dispute over the basics I doubt much can be analyzed objectively. If you can it's appreciated.

sharkscope only searches tournaments. i'd ask which tournaments weren't covered, but he played 268 rebuy tourneys within that time period with an abi of $13.44 and as a reformed rebuy nut i know all too well how much a $3r can cost if you want to accumulate maximum chips in the first hour.

he has a listed $1208 profit over those according to sharkscope but that's the site's estimate. the true numbers would definitely be different from this number, and it'd be a guess as to how much the rebuys truly throw off the numbers. there are some $20 rebuys in there.. that could throw off the numbers by hundreds of dollars. that being said it'd also be wrong to completely throw out the rebuy tourneys as well.

so my official analysis is that you can't settle this using sharkscope. you'd need a pokerstars player audit and somebody who knows how to use excel.

Won't stars send hh for any period you request? It seems like the best place to need an audit for.

stars definitely tracks this, i distinctly remember seeing rebuys enumerated, i think it's in the big excel spreadsheet that contains every transaction your account ever made called the player audit. i don't think you have to go through all the hand histories.

edit: o **** you know what, maybe tournament summaries? what were those things called? that you had to get for holdemmanger. i forget the name

Some of Jeff's emails to SGT, for context:

5/27/11


6/2/11


6/2/11

Even if by some bizarre interpretation of the deal Jeff thinks he was allowed to take funds weekly from the stake even when it was down overall (when even RJ wasn't taking any), how the **** is he not liable to repay that? That's not makeup, that's money he took from the stake. 'Makeup' of this sort would certainly have no expiration date by any reasonable assessment of this situation.

what sucks is that I did all this two years ago but didn't keep it, and I don't want to do it again. She needed to keep better track of things because it gets really complicated, and she left me to do it all by myself, even though I was her only stake.

When I did the analysis the first time, I came up with +235, but that was with an amended deal that she basically forced me to take midstream.

I'm willing to give her that 235, but only if she agrees to absolve me of makeup and delete the thread.

That seems to be the easiest way to settle it.

Is that ok?

I'm quite certain, and SA can maybe confirm, that's it's going to end up as all MU if we were to actually compute it.

Is that right SA?

.

yup

it took me days to compute all this, and figure it out. It was extremely complicated and I didn't have any help but I went through this already.

I don't care enough about money (obv) to lie about it so I think ppl should just take my word for it. I was a data analyst for 12 years, so I'm qualified. I honored her change in the agreement and I came up with 235 + 665 MU

I think given the circumstances, the MU should go away. If she still wants to settle at 235, that's fine, but it's going to cost her more if she hires a data analyst and she might find she's owed nothing.

235 and delete thread imo

ok post what you used for your raw numbers when you were figuring it out. you don't have to explain them

if it's a big file host it on google drive or mega, if you used pictures host them on photobucket or flickr

It's clear from the PMs and emails posted that you've lied about this particular sum of money several times already. So yeah, you do care enough to lie about it. (to refresh your memory, you lied about not getting the check, you lied about your girlfriend taking it, and so forth)

I see no reason for MU to go away, but also I see no reason to accept your accounting method for the makeup in the first place. As you said, it's your word against hers but your explanation of the arrangement is so far from the norm that absent proof to the contrary I have a hard time believing that was the deal.

Seems pretty unlikely.