It would seem to be relevant to two aspects of the discussion: why she sought a staking deal, and why she refuses to honor what the staker claims is the condition of walking away from the staking.

Finally, I find it amusing that there's so much willingness to accept that, because some attorneys at a firm of the type at which she worked will sometimes make $500k a year that she was in fact earning that. People exaggerate their resumes, qualifications, and earnings not infrequently.

The idea that having money means you shouldn't get backing is very inept.

Ex: A player has $200,000 to play 5/10 with, and savings which never mix....a responsible and successful player. They have a $50k downswing over 6 months and spent $20k from their savings.

They still have a functional 5/10 bankroll, but stress is beginning to compile; there's no certainty when they will be above even again. Trading profit to have no stress makes sense.

Most players won't reach this ^ level of cushion either. Consider how new to the poker world Cate was and accept her previous income doesn't matter.

For no other reason than Howard Treesong says so. He is one of the most credible and respected members of 2+2 and indeed the enter poker community. (From what I gather from the forums.)

Two observations. First, I have personally seen her comp statement from the full year before she quit, and I would testify under oath that her comp was within spitting distance of 500k.

Second, the firm she was with was one of the ten or so hardest firms in the country to get a job. Their rates and comp are quite high, and her comp would have increased in future years. About five minutes with google can verify all this.

Put this issue to bed.

Sorry to raise it from the dead, Howard, but I'm curious what a 'compensation statement' is. Thanks in advance.

Sure. Many firms will send a memo at the end of every year showing compensation, which can come in several forms — salary, bonus, benefits, 401k match, etc etc.

Forgive me if I'm being nosy, but in what situation would someone show their friend their enviable comp statement, aside from bragging? Things like that seem rather private. I have friends who say they make a solid income of 250k/year, which I believe, but I cannot think of a situation in which they'll show me their comp statement unless it was to brag or to prove that they really did make that much. I never questioned their income so there wasn't a need for them to prove it.

Cate posted it on her twitter feed when dentale bet her she didn’t make the money she claimed, so your premise isn’t quite right.

Oh, the irony of the revelation that she quietly sold at least 80% of herself for that 20k grudge match, then to subsequently boast about having made 500k/year in her former job on Twitter.

As I said before though, this was the only option she gave me. I suggest 3 arbitrators, ones we don't know, anonymous 2+2 arbitration etc but she declined them all.

I though I posted in this thread a screenshot of me texting her and clarifying/apologizing for my last email sounding hostile and that not being my intent. I wasn't trying to go for the whole $60k, and as soon as I realized there was a decent chance that she honestly misunderstood the agreement, I offered half - which as many have agreed, is perfectly fair.

The arbitration did not go in her favor. I realize that she said it did in a post, but in reality her position was that she would owe nothing and could quit poker. Their position was that she had to buyout or stay on stake. My position was that she had to buyout or stay on stake. They sided with me mostly, but both the arbitrators and I agreed to negotiating a buyout instead of the full amount - which as I said earlier in this post, I asked for half.

Phase One: Stake losing players
Phase Three: Profit

Yes, my policy is to protect myself from getting freerolled in pretty much this exact situation.

Sorry but how is there no stress? If they owe 100% make up then the downside/potential stress isn't really changed much - aside from the possible out where the backer drops them. Essentially they'd just be borrowing money they don't need.

I mean if you're down 100k in that scenario then you've either lost 100k of your own money if not backed or you owe the backer 100k in MU - either way you're down still 100k.... only if you make money while backed then you give up 50% of your upside.

What is the point of that if you've got a decent bankroll? Nearly the same downside (albeit with the backer's discretion to remove it) but half the upside.

scenario 1 : you are backed and lose 100k. net result = you have lost nothing.

scenario 2 : you play on your own and lose 100k. net result = you lose 100k.

seems to me there is about 100k in difference.

Indeed you did, and the point suggests you were trying to find a sensible resolution rather than trying to score points off of someone.

Not if you made the stupid deal of having to pay back your losses if the backer won't drop you.

Whereas your points are valid, it is a bad bankroll decision to get staked in such an example. I completely empathise that financial swings can be stresfull and could affect the lifestyle/play of certain players...

BUT, part of proffessional gambling successfully is managing your money properly, and part of successful money management is understanding how financial swings will affect you and working on protecting yourself from it.

So in the example you gave, before the downswing reaches $50k - a point at which he is affected to the point of damaging his earning potential, he should take measures, start selling 15% for a little bit until things turn around, mix in some play at lower stakes, game select harder etc. Just going on $50k downswing and then gettin staked (halving your hourly) is IMO a pretty terrible bankroll decision and shows some pretty inadequate money management, for a professional player.

If you have the money it makes no sense to get a 100pct makeup deal indeed ever, that's simple math.

Unless you either misunderstood
Or you did, but have low moral integrity and plan on not paying/already considered quitting poker so you have that bailing option or hoping to get dropped if you lose a lot at the back of your head.


No winning player that has integrity to honor debt would cut his Winrate in half if he has the money willingly without also cutting the downside , that's just madness

If that were the case this thread wouldn't exist, the scenario is the backer isn't accepting the losses and expects the horse to pay them back.

So you lose 100k in either scenario and you owe 100k (unless the backer lets you off at his discretion)... but in the backed scenario you give up half your profits.

That makes no sense at all for someone who already has a sufficient bankroll.

Howard Treesong receives a similar comp statement each weekend of practicing law.

There's several ways to shield a backed player from a downswing. One would be to pay them a salary - say 50% of the earn for a $100k/yr player. On 12/31 they check their p/l and see $100k profit. They put $100k in a dufflebag and have their pa drive it over to their backer: half was returning the salary, and half was the chop on a 50/50 stake.

The assumption is that the stakee is a real professional -- meaning in it for the long run. There is no fear they will quit. The backer is thus able to renegotiate for the next year while doing everything to keep as much money in the stakee's pocket.

An example for a great player to get temporary staking is when expecting a newborn. Another is an online player switching to live.

Gives up their time? Could be earning money elsewhere? You make it sound like the horse is doing the backer a favor. In reality someone is giving a broke scum bag a lot money to play poker and a chance to make money, so for them to be completely devoid of any financial risk is ridiculous imo. It might not have to be 100% MU but there needs to be a certain %, you can't just donk off someones money and walk away clean, so stupid.

That's just the business angle. There is also the moral, ethical aspect which Cate has clearly failed. Even if she is not legally obligated a decent person would at least offer some level of MU.



I'm pretty sure Amazon factory works also hate their jobs and they are not making 500k a year. They bite their lips and work for 30k a year. If she really did throw away 500k a year because she 'didn't like it' shes dumber than she appears. I am still skeptical anything has been verified. Its not hard to scam up some piece of paper. How do we know she wasn't actually sacked from her job for being a junkie or incompetent?

The arbitrators did both of you bad by not issuing a joint ruling signed by both outlining the points they agreed on. From reading what Cate posted, it seems like they agree that:

• Quitting poker should be treated differently from continuing to play after quitting the stake to play on her own money or with another backer.
• She can't quit poker, sit out for a sufficient time, then come back with the makeup erased.
• A reasonable solution would be to negotiate a buy-out.

Maybe they should have negotiated the buy-out for you.

Cate's position is stated as: "to the extent I continue to play poker, the makeup number stands, but I’m under no obligation to play, or pay him money." Neither arbitrator seems to contradict that belief. For her, quitting poker is effectively staying on stake with zero volume. If the main contention was whether or not this was allowed, then you lost the arbitration. She perceives threatening to make this public as being a sore loser.

She comes across as someone whose self-image relies heavily upon seeing herself as a person of utmost integrity. You come across as challenging her character, so she is motivated to hold on to every little point and fight for it. I don't know if she would have been open to negotiating a buyout of makeup, but starting out in a way that she perceived as extortion makes it much less likely that you can reach an accommodation. Even if you backpedaled in a later text, your initial salvo invoked anchoring bias. Maybe a compromise is still possible, but it would probably require you making some effort to partially restore her reputation.

Firstly, all your posts on here indicate a large amount of anger and bitterness. I wish you the best with working through all of that

As far as her previous salary goes, why is everyone so obsessed with this and also so amazed? I'm sure a large part is envy and yes it is far above average, but a lot of talented people earn a lot of money in various fields.

Is the disbelief because she quit? Well if she hated her job she was right to quit. Your $30k amazon worker is a ridiculous comparison. that hypothetical person may not have any choice due to lack of savings or alternative job opportunities. CH would have had decent savings and various other options. there are many possible reasons to hate a job, insane workload, bad culture, work relationship issues, disillusionment with what you are doing. But if you truly "hate" a job then sticking with it when you have alternatives would usually be a bad decision.

Also, it's not like she had to cut off her brain when she left. at the time she'd have known she could always go back to that type of work if she chose to.

as to the bolded, we know this because in this day of internet detectives/social media etc. it would have for sure come out if she'd actually been sacked for these or other reasons

STFU. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Something no one will ever be able to accuse you of.

lul. Thanks. And I wish you all the best in getting past 5nl one day.


I doubt many around here are envious over a broke junkie who is at least 60k in debt. I'd say most people simply like calling out bs artists and don't like being lied to.


Yes she clearly had so much savings she had to get staked for 5/10, and would rather expose herself as a losing degenerate than pay off at least some MU and steal the remaining $1300 of her BR. Such a independent successful baller.

I'm pretty sure that kind of information would be strictly confidential and breaching could possibly be illegal. You are free to keep believing the words of a degenerate junkie though. lul.


Ain't you the muppet who has vouched for Cate being an honest straight up person, despite being made aware she blatantly lied about never being staked? lul.

hmm are you sure? i think i do detect a just a tiny bit of envy there

I mean her salary was corroborated but even if it wasn't why would you care so much about some stranger who plays poker's former salary? there are many high income earners in the world, and even though you are not one yourself why is it so amazing that someone else is/was? Who cares if you like her /dislike her, want to call her a junkie whatever, it just seems weird to care so much about this

as far as "SHE SO DUMB JUNKIE PROBS GOT SACKED". in the real world of business, "confidential" or not, the general circumstances always becomes known when someone with a fairly high profile job like that gets sacked. Of course the company doesn't issue a press release but many many people know about what's gone down and the word always gets around.

i don't mean to make you more angry as you might already be at dangerous levels, sick burn about the 5NL by the way

Take it easy