or he's just covering his bases since he cant personally guarantee that nick doesn't owe someone money from some previous transaction

Hey, leave me outta this pls....

fwiw if he owes you money, this is different than makeup. for each 1k he owes you OUTSIDE the staking agreement, he needs to make 2k to pay it off (1k for you on the stake, 1k for him which goes to you to pay the debt). that way, it would be the same as if he were staked by a 3rd party and using his % of the profits to pay you back. Only you fill the role of the 3rd party.



kind of assuming you know this, but doesn't hurt to put it out there.

Yeah, the money he owes is technically his balance from Black Friday, so it's makeup. We were supposed to meetup during the WSOP for payment, and stuff began to go bad then.

Stop posting permanently then. Coming into the thread saying he owes you 5k but your not going to give details is bs. You could have done that privately. Why do you even come to 2+2, it clearly isn't for the community's benefit.

Why is he hiding from search again?

Why does it matter?

Why do you care why it matters? Im not asking so I can go berate him, just curious to why its on all of a sudden than off the next day.

Because I told him to turn it off if he wants to make it more difficult for random ass people to troll him.

I don't really have any business in this (other than that I play vs. him on a regular basis), but I think it's just a bad idea - because it kinda shows that no matter how many times you scam people and just generally act like an arse, there's always gonna be someone who will stake you and defend you on a public forum. Anyway, good luck with it, hope he doesn't do what he usually does

So you think it's a better precedent, for people to get scammed out of money and make no effort to recoup their money? Just let the guy run off?

wait what, how is this the alternative to what you quoted?

There is something just wrong about letting a guy use your own money to repay a debt with you.

Sad thing is that it looks like it's your only choice here. I guarantee Nick will scam or be involved in a similar scandal within a year, this is because he has never been punished properly for doing so.

He's broke, and can't afford to play. So I either step up and try to help, or don't get paid back anytime soon.

Nope, not what I said. I mean, if you buy a piece/stake a proven scammer, it's only fair that your money is stolen.

He shouldn't be given a second chance, and hey, maybe those who staked him shouldn't be given a second chance either, because they kinda knew what they were getting into. You don't let him "run off", you expose him, troll him, tell everyone you know, whatever, just make sure it doesn't happen again.

Right now, there's a chance that everyone will be paid back and then he can go back to scamming, because he paid everyone back, didn't he? Only next time it may be for a more significant amount of money and he will actually disappear.

Once again, I don't know the inner working of your deal, but that's what it looks like to an outsider.

(off for a bit, will check later)

Just what do you think makeup is exactly?

Is it still makeup if that money he owes was obtained through a scam or fraudulent means?




Agreed completely.

First off, remember that I didn't buy a piece of him during WSOP. He asked me for backing a long time before WSOP, he had several references I checked out, I even asked the guy who used to back him and they all said he had a kind of checkered past but that he was a good guy. If you really think I deserve to be scammed for that, I'm not really sure what to say.

As for the rest of your post, I just think you think of this whole situation way too black/white. I'll give you an example.

If on May 1st, Nick told me he spent all my money on hookers and blow and disappeared, and then I saw his staking thread in the Marketplace, I would have ****ing carpet bombed the thread(probably done some before too, but that's not the point I'm making). And MTTc. And twitter. And texted/tweeted those thinking about buying pieces. That is the time to troll, and tell others, and whatever else you are talking about.

But he has this thread. He has a website dedicated to him. He's been exposed in like 4 different forums now. That part of the story is over. All that is left now is people getting paid back. I'm one of those he owes. He can't pay me back without help. So it simply becomes a math problem for me, and in this case I think it is definitely +EV.

I really think people outside of the staking world don't realize how often stuff like this happens. It's really common. LOTS AND LOTS of guys have little weird things in their past, and usually there are two completely different sides to the story that are tough to piece together. Part of your job as a staker, is getting through those stories, interviewing the people, and deciding whether you think they are trustworthy. The concept that because you might get fooled, or because a situation may change and you get scammed that you somehow "deserve" it is laughable and ridiculous to me.

I mean seemingly Nick could guarantee it if he was asked. He kinda ought to know. If he doesn't know, or if he does guarantee it and his word isn't good enough to be trustworthy on the issue, it seems like that should be something that would speak volumes on whether or not to agree to a new staking arrangement with the guy. The fact that his own staker seems to have no idea if his stakee owes other people money from previous agreements seems like an eyebrow-raiser to an outside observer. That was all I was saying.

Nobody, including me, ever claimed this was an ideal agreement.

Well let's see.

We have a guy who obviously scammed people, and is now broke. Which is the better precedent?

1) Scammer in a tight spot finds out no one is there to help him as a direct consequence of his past actions. He's broke and has no choice but to grind micros on his own non-existent money, with little chance of actually being able to play his bills in the short term at those stakes.

2) Scammer in a tight spot gets bailed out, is offered a way out of his financial predicament by one of the same people he previously scammed. You know, 5th chances and all.

I mean I can see how option 2 could be better from the narrow perspective of an individual who wants money back. But if we're talking about a "better precedent" from an overall perspective, in terms of the message sent to the scammer? I'll take option 1, thanks.

this is looking more like a heeb than anything. hes got Nick playing $3 games.

I think the risk is worth the reward here for Horton.

Both of those scenarios end the same way. In one, people get paid back. In the other, they don't.

Didnt ZBT say he didnt scam him?

I wasn't involved in the WSOP Fiasco. He owes me money from a different deal. I've stated that I trust him more than others because he was honest with me about the issue and made payments when he could.