No.

Although, the number of posters who feel a deal requiring payback of MU if horse leaves the poker work force is an acceptable deal is amazing to me.

Random unknown 19 year old kid takes a shot with a backer who sees potential. Kid thinks he knows what’s ahead. Everything is going fine until hits a downswing. Has a newborn baby. Wife starts nagging about the long and late hours. Kid can’t take the pressure of life outside poker and play anymore under these conditions. Chooses his family - quits in $10k MU. He gets a job outside of poker flipping burgers, because he lives in the rust belt and that’s his only options. Flips burgers for 10 years trying to feed his family and eventually pays back the $10k.

(If this were an actual situation with Chad, he seems like a guy with integrity, I’d bet he’d write the $10k off. That’s beside the point though.)

How a horse can ignore this risk (and still give away 50% upside) and take a deal requiring pay back of MU if fails and leaves poker is beyond me.

Gzesh is correct. “If you can't quit poker while on a stake you are…an indentured servant…”

That’s the only issue relevant and the reason for the arbitration.

But she's not really quitting, she is trying as we say where I come from, "to have two-bob each way"

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/...5563160-e-3209

It's incredible she listed 'I was a bad horse, that I will admit' or whatever very deep, beyond the walls of text in her twitter performance. I'm looking forward to her intellectually just follow-up walls of text confessional of the pattern of mistakes and how much she's grown as a person.

Month 1 - makes $2k, chops up $1k each.

Month 2 - drops $10k, says he has to quit.

Well, they entered a 50/50 deal and now player is up $1k and backer is down $9k. Paying off MU @ 50% would mean backer is down $4k and player is down $4k. When 2 reasonable people agree that he should go flip burgers, they usually arrive at a sensible manageable payment for the situation. What often happens is the player just drops contact, or the backer demands the full $10k within 24 hours to a guy making $400/week.

And what VERY often happens is that the player is back playing poker full time for someone else by the end of the week. If a backer can't reasonably protect themselves from that eventuality, it's a rough spot.

Dwan had the same arrangement with the triads. But he didn’t quit, he grinded out of the makeup and can now leave the dungeon. Ivey is still in makeup.

I’m kidding, but don’t think I’m too far off.

That's fascinating.

Where do you come from ? What's "two-bob", is that something in real money ?

Appreciate the kind words. I did know she wasn't great, but I didn't think she was bad, and she gets in great spots - the all ladies lineup on PNIA, Dentale HU, random guys offering her a rebate after she makes a bad river call etc. I was apprehensive about staking her, but decided to give it a shot.

You can quit poker any time, you just owe a buyout of your makeup. Sometimes this takes people a decade to get back to me. If you refuse to honor this term, then I have a right to know you are refusing when I present this as a term at the start of the stake.

I get contacted all the time about staking people. At least 30 people have asked me for staking just since this story came to surface. I can respect if someone doesn't like my contract, and I'm fine to not do business with them. I'm not fine with them agreeing and then scumming later, and I think that's a fair and reasonable perspective.

Why can't he flip burgers full time while putting in 5-10 hours a week trying to clear his 10k makeup?

Poor analogy because she, at no point, was "going fine" in this deal. She did nothing but put in low volume, get high on the job, and then ghost her backer the moment she dumped in her big shot. This is the opposite of anything going fine at any moment.

Even if she was somehow 100% correct with the technical rules of the stake, what she did is objectively scummy. To show no effort to get back any of the money she dumped, ghost your backer, and then only display purely selfish interest in being cleared of that debt at any expense is just terrible.

You are correct that the people who already hate her will hate her more now. You are wrong when it comes to my overall point though. If a random guy did this with no "name" there would be no supporters for him. No one would be considering there's more to the story since he's already an established personality that has friends in many places that already respect him and would eagerly come to his defense. He's going to be assumed to be a scammer because 99/100 that's exactly what they are when these types of situations arise. Her having a name/brand is the only thing having her hold on to any modicum of respect/understanding here.

fyp

Seriously, look at this as an investment risk by the backer, who is willing to put up a stake for someone to play poker. We're not talking about investing in an FDIC certificate of deposit, or a secured credit facility for starting a small business. There were a couple of very good analytical posts above in this thread, staking is a business of investing, it is not gambling nor is it generally lending.

There is a reason why poker staking is legal in Nevada, but I can't say off-hand that a MU requirement or non-compete would be enforceable against anyone who has left a purely staking arrangement, unless there were some elements of a loan expressly spelled out, and especially so in a signed writing.

Link to where she says she not going to honor arbs decisions and comeback and grind MU?

If she makes a decision to quit then we are in agreement?

I think all will agree not good for her or Chad to grind at this point in time.

He could, but it seems doubtful he would have to do so. That 5 -10 hours per week you ask about is his time. At most, his unsecured creditor could try to convert his claim to an enforceable judgment and try to collect, can't make him play.

/thread /discussion

Yea far be it from anyone to bash the delusional lying fraud scumbag Cate hall.Go White Knight somewhere else.

I think there's a suspicion based on previous behaviour (as reported by CP), going AWOL, playing under the influence, not putting in volume, that she could pause for a while so this is buried in history, and then return.

A partial settlement seems like an obvious route for both of them, and not quite fully, most mostly restores both of their reputations.

There's nothing wrong in being a hard nosed-staker, it's just a service. There is nothing wrong in sometimes losing at poker or getting sick, but there's probably something wrong if the two of them can't break this deadlock.

He might be a nice guy but this is truly hilarious

Glad I never actually made my hypothetical bet that Chad would probably writing off the debt from the naïve kid now flipping burgers while feeding his family. I might start referring to KyddDynamite as Hotel California.

Seriously?

What has that got to do with my point? His wife won’t stop nagging him about the hours away playing poker – to answer your specific question. Maybe another kid is a horse but found out every time he goes into a poker room and plays he gets sick because he has a low immune system - is forced to quit. The reasons are irrelevant to the point.

I mean God bless Chad for getting people to enter these deals. He gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Not many people realize there are maybe literally no investment deals in the business world where an investor gets this great of a deal. Maybe someone can give me an analogy that holds in the business world. I haven’t seen one yet.

Now as far as MU and quitting Chad in MU and moving to another backer and expecting not to have to pay back - of course that should be part of a standard deal.

I've staked full time for just over 10 years now, I've got a rough idea of what's involved. You can stake your way (if you do) and I'll stake my way. People quitting in makeup happens periodically. The one thing I will always do is make sure it goes on the NF thread, so players don't "quit poker for ever" 4 times a year and I appreciate hearing about others doing the same, as likely they will be approaching me shortly afterwards for a stake. It is an investment risk, but as with all risks, you assess them, take what steps you can to mitigate them and then choose to accept the risk or not. If players skipped out on MU routinely, I would have gone off and made a bunch of other investment decisions.

Enlightening, even eye-opening thread... I had no idea staking arrangements worked this way and had some of these conventions.

Nice.

Serious question (i.e. I don't mean to sound like I'm needling Chad, although some will think I am. I really am asking from a place of curiosity):

Why stake a broke player? Isn't that a pretty good indication that they are – at the very least – a high-risk situation? A broke player means he/she is either a) a losing a player, or b) poor at BRM. Wouldn't/shouldn't either characteristic make someone steer clear of staking such a horse?

Not quitting- her own words:

https://twitter.com/catehall/status/1042097846994882560

Bc they can easily enter a long cycle of making money for the backer but not enough to build a real roll and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem to have embedded the wrong tweet as she definitely doesn't say she's not quitting in that one

Power may be winning this thread, but Hall seems to be winning the PR battle. Articles on sites like Cardplayer and Calvin Ayre are going with the "Poker Pro Accuses Backer Of Extortion" narrative over the "Horse stiffs Backer after dropping 60K" narrative.