It would be interesting to see how a contract like this would be challenged. It seems like it would tread into the domain of usury laws which varies from state to state.

Entirely agree. The Will Koussaf thread got posted at the same time with a much more obvious or black and white (but less nuanced) “scam” and has half the traffic.

Lol. Probably a main source of the negative bias

It's obviously a horrible, horrible deal for the horse regardless of whether there're a lot of dumb as rocks gamblers out there who might jump at the opportunity. The ridiculousness of this is that even if someone is clearly a losing player chad would still be turning a profit on the deal if he was able to reliably collect the makeup.

The contract basically depends on people being financially illiterate. And that's why usury laws exist, which is why even though the deal isn't a conventional loan it may be of interest to higher courts to set a precedence on the matter.

That said i can't imagine it being tried on those grounds when the 'victim' is a lawyer who should be expected to understand contracts even if it doesn't perfectly overlap with her area of 'expertise'.

But of course the staking convo is extremely important, If sauce can draw something up given his original post and some solid feedback I could see it become the 2p2 policy of staking and I would work to get it enshrined.

AFAIK she hasn't expressly said it. She has, however, tried to renegotiate our deal, and talked about playing in the future.

I do stake some people out of generosity. Obviously there is something in it for me too, but if I weighed the value of my time and me grinding vs the time I know I'd have to sink into some horses, I've absolutely made the choice out of kindness on multiple occasions. I certainly wouldn't call it altruistic though.

I explained what he would be obligated to do per our agreement, that isn't to suggest I haven't cut nearly everyone a deal who is in this situation.

Generally anyone who comes to me for a stake is a high risk situation or they would be playing on their own. I look at character and work ethic when I decide to stake someone. If someone is a broke losing playing with high integrity/work ethic but poor BRM - well stake negates BRM, and I can teach them how to win. You just need honorable people.

Ya, I saw some libelous things printed. Some potentially maliciously, and other just maybe only read her twitter.

If someone is a clear losing player, they get dropped and owe nothing. I don't know why some people aren't grasping this concept and think I'm freerolling. I don't hang on to a losing player while they bleed away my money and pray that they tap out before I go broke. I'm a bit baffled that this even needs explained, but if you need me to elaborate on this, I can explain why that's a bad idea.

I've had horses go from $1/$3 to $10/$25 in a year under this horrible horrible deal and they don't regret it one bit. I also have people ask me for a stake constantly over the last few years. I've helped stagnant poker careers flourish. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose. If it this deal for you, don't apply, but lots of people have applied that are very intelligent people and they did very well for themselves and for me under this exact deal.

If I had 60K to burn, I would clearly give it to the psychotic drug addict with the victimization-persecution complex.

I’m not sure if you are talking about before or after arbitration. I’m assuming you two have had no communication since she went on her lost 2 day holiday post arbitration.

I promise you (not literally speaking) she didn’t try to renegotiate your original deal. I believe that she never knew this was a stipulation. She’s a lawyer. It’s unfathomable that she would agree to pay MU if she quits poker for good.

But, she is scum if she plays poker in the future without getting out of MU or cutting you a deal.

It seems to me things escalated too fast before either of you understood how the other could feel the way they felt pre-arbitration. Neither might get it even now.

I'm not so involved in the money side of the poker world where i can give a nuanced answer but I'd express similar sentiments.

If I was running a business and concerned about every $, I wouldn't go looking to stake drug addicts, recreational drug users, mediocre players with big ego's, whatever.

I'd look to cut them out of my life, and try to avoid them for good.

It's a bit late to say but I'd start chalking up the situation as an expensive lesson to be learnt as soon as I'd caught her in the 1st lie.

A leopard can't change it's spots!

firstly. I'll white knight where ever the hell I want.

Secondly please post facts supporting your claimns that Cate is a lying fraud scumbag (please exclude things you pull from your arse)

Cant say I've read every post ITT. But have you ever addressed what I read above about you agreeing to binding arbitration and then after not liking the outcome deciding to instead pursue the case in the higher court of NVG ?

I can absolutely see Chad saying “if you quit the stake, you have to pay me whatever makeup you’re on.” I can see Chad thinking at the time that applies to “This applies to Cate quitting poker entirely and she is a Yale-educated lawyer and must understand that because there is no qualifying language on “if you quit the stake.””

I can see Cate thinking “okay, what Chad is telling me is that if I want to play poker on my own or shift to another backer, I’ve got to pay whatever makeup I’m in” without ever applying the literal language (“if you quit the stake”) to the situation where she quits poker entirely.

This is exactly the stuff of which contract disputes are made: two slightly different interpretations of the same language, where both sides later explain why they meant what they thought.

If I were arbitrating this, I would ask each side a slightly different question to try to get at the heart of the dispute. For Chad: “did you ever tell Cate that she would owe makeup in the specific situation where she sought to quit poker entirely?”

For Cate: did Chad ever carve out quitting poker entirely from the makeup, or did he simply say “if you choose to quit, you owe me any makeup you’re in?”

I think Chad has said here that he said “if you quit for whatever reason” ... is there any factual dispute from Cate that this is the language Chad used?

I can imagine limiting cases that “for whatever reason” probably shouldn’t apply: Cate is in a horrible accident and is quadriplegic and blind. Would she owe makeup then? Chad will of course say that he’s never enforce makeup in that situation, but that’s a different question from whether he is entitled to or not.

This line of analysis is what I think the arbitrators should have done.

Chad has posted that he is not currently seeking the 60k and he is therefore within the arbs rulings. Chad is also technically correct that posting here doesn’t violate the arb rulings. So I think Cate is incorrect to say that Chad is not following the arb rulings.

I personally blame twitter for the drama. This is one that two mature parties should have been able to resolve between themselves without the public smearing. Neither one looks good for that reason, and I don’t much care to hear about “he/she started it!” That argument should be left in about the third grade.

I think Cate just needs to stop being a drug addict with visions of grandeur all the while trying to reach back into a time in her life when she had it together (Being a lawyer)to try to weasel (lawyer) her way out of a series of bad decisions that resulted in a large personal debt.

Shes acting just like every other I want to play the victim when im the one who took the action degenerate scumbags that mingle through out poker rooms and gambling halls.

She lays all of this out publicly, types it all out inwhat she thinks is coherent and iron clad then says btw im going to disappear for 2 days at least and i wont respond to any of this.

GOOOOOO **** YOURSELF with that BS. You ****ing coward ass scam artist. GTFO and go huff some **** you ****ing **** up./

No no no see this is exactly what the people need. 99% of the faces and known players in the poker world are just opportunistic FRAUDS. Theyre almost universally broke, backed and in debt. They almost universally are awful at the game, and almost universally all have the insane delusional visions of themselves.

This is what people need to know about poker.. that youre drawing dead, you cant start at the bottom and grind it up and that your heros arent who you think they are and in reality theyre just a bunch of degenerate scumbags that like to put off like theyre successful cause in reality theyre just so miserable at their existence and the life theyve built for themselves and got caught in that they have to use all that energy for something so ****ing people over is what they chose when they realize theyre not good at anything else in the world.

Here's what everyone criticising Chad's "payback policy" is missing.

There is only two ways that a staking arrangement can end;

1. Player Quits
2. Staker Quits

If there is no make-up, then there is no issue to resolve. If there is make-up when a stake ends then this is what happens;

1. Player can go play poker with no obligation to the backer
2. Backer loses the make-up

Of course, lots of agreements end amicably with profit between the two parties, but if they don't ALL the risk sits with the backer, and given as we've already seen agreements are unenforceable and rely on integrity, I think it's wholly reasonable that the backer would put a term into the agreement to protect themselves from the risks. It's also quite reaosnable that he also insists the rule applies to "Quitting" poker, as if you think about it someone could SAY they are quitting poker in order to dodge their liability whereas is actual fact they are not quitting poker... Sounds far fetched but I reckon that could be a thing that could happen ...

Comparisons to loan sharking and slave-driving is just not right at all.

It is the precise articulation of this term that determines the answer to this dispute.

I can 100% see this as having happened.

Especially given that it seems Hotel California doesn’t see much difference in the 2 MU scenarios. (Or at least gives the impression not to. I think there’s a good chance he never thought deeply about it.)

Also, horses who are “collectible” are more likely to consider this clause and perhaps/probably negotiate it differently from horses who have no wherewithal to pay if quit poker in MU.

If CH decides to actually quit poker, what needs agreed to next is the length of what quitting means.

I would liken it to a covenant not to compete one enters when selling one’s business. 3-7 years maybe is a “norm” in the business world. The higher one pays for a business (the goodwill portion) the longer the covenant should be, the less one pays for a business the shorter the covenant period usually is.

jfc

Drug addicts can't just STOP being drug addicts anymore than you could have just stopped from writing one of the dumbest things I have ever read on 2+2

you also have some serious Mommy issues

this thread is why I don't stake, nor am staked. You're gonna get nailed for a big loss at some point. At least try to make sure all terms are clear from both parties.

I hope Cate gets her life together.

Two things the two might want to think about if entering either a negotiation to buy out or agree she is quitting poker:

If quitting – the length of time that means.

If buying out not only the makeup figure but the $ amount (if any) of profits having already been chopped up 50/50. Since it can be assumed CH might have negotiated the terms differently.

Since the premise is now (per arbiters’ rulings) there was no meeting of the minds regarding quitting in MU, the original structure should be viewed with different eyes.

For example maybe CH would have originally agreed to an 80/20 in her favor spilt if she ever has to pay full MU. This can be 80/20 from the git go (moot now) or a clause saying, profits are 50/50, but if I quit we will recalculate past profits splits. So recalculate all the profits chopped up already as 80/20. This reduces the MU figure, she then pays in full the recalculated MU amount if wants a buyout.

There isn't really a dispute, the arbitrated and both accepted the decision. The entire discussion is mostly just post-game analysis of the situation.

Cate is not quitting poker, and Chad is not getting a penny - these two things are almost for certain.

In my opinion Cate's been totally out of line, Chad's been totally ****ed over and I really struggle to see any defence for Cate's behaviour. Whilst this is my opinion I also believe it would have been very hard for Chad to have requested the full $60k form her, I do not believe that is what he would have done but Cate should have approached him to resolve the matter instead of using loopholes to dissolve of her responsibility.

My opinion though, just like everyone elses, is kind of irrelevant, the whole thing is over.

this entire situation shows what a lying fraud scumbag she is.anyone who had ever played with her before already knew she wasn't very good.
the fact she had to be staked for 5/10 despite running like god in tournaments shows what a fraud she is.
the fact she denied being staked in the process also shows it.

you're the one pulling stuff out of your ass white knight.

all of this.

the people who really win year in year out generally aren't the ones boasting about it.
they want to continue to get good action and get in good games.they want the money not the attention. of course there are some exceptions.

but generally speaking it's the frauds who want people to think they're crushers, often times to scam people into backing/staking them and sometimes to cover up their insecurities.

Cate dissembling about whether or not she was staked isn’t relevant to anything. I do know Cate and while I am not fond of her, she has never been anything but relentlessly honest with me. I don’t believe she is lying one bit about her actual views of this arrangement.

Final point , probably repeating something I wrote above: if their respective texts are the entire record, the two arbitrators in this dispute were shallow, lazy and thoughtless. I can think of a dozen 2p2ers and another dozen people in the DC poker world that would have done a much much better job.

shows absolutely nothing of the sort.

does show that you are too emotional about this topic and not using much logic in how you are analyzing it.