Hi KyddDynamite:

I thought I would make a few comments since I think there's going to be a lot of discussion. To start, from reading your post above and much of what Cate tweeted, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your side of this dispute. Also, I don't know you and don't believe we have ever met and I don't know Cate and have never met her, though I do remember a nasty tweet from her (I think) having something to do with my poker psychology book.

1. Staking is a business and the staker needs to make a profit. If that's not the case, I think it should be obvious the staker will eventually be out of business.

2. Even though staking is a for profit business, it doesn't mean that every horse is supposed to make money for the staker.

3. There will always be some problem people. Now, I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's clearly a downside the staker has to deal with, especially if he has a lot of staking arrangements.

4. Regression back towards the mean is probably the staker's worse enemy. Now I suspect that you and most serious stakers know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't, regression back towards the mean is a statistical idea that basically says, when applied to poker, that very good results tend to be followed by results more in line with the true expectation of the participant.

A well known example from baseball is that the rookie of the year tends to have a sophomore slump. And in poker, it usually means that players who have a great run, tend to not do as well in the future. David Sklansky discusses this in his book Getting the Best of It and I also address it in my Real Poker Psychology.

4. Because of #3 and #4, it makes sense to me that stakers should drive a hard deal. If #3 and #4 didn't exist, then it would be relatively easy for a staker to be profitable, but I suspect that many people who get into this side of the poker business, don't do very well.

Also, as an aside, I knew a person years ago who did some successful short-term staking. He told me that the reason why he was successful is that he would tell a horse that he was good for X amount of money, but if the horse lost Y amount of money, and Y was a much smaller number than X, he would drop the horse.

Best wishes,
Mason

Isn't staking known to be a no-no? Mike dentale knew in hindsight...when she punted with some trash holdings in a big tournament and tried to justify it. Damn staking 40 people kind of bossy **** Well done!!!

Didn’t Cate Hall make 500k in her former job? 60k is chump change. Shouldn’t be hard for her to pay back 30k to make things right since she weaseled out of the staking deal by “quitting poker” after shot taking and losing. A few people have pointed out that grinding back some of the losses would be the good will thing to do, but since she’s not capable (which is her own fault), she should just pay back some portion of the makeup as a good will gesture.

Sounds like the staking deal is a complete freeroll by the staker. Why wold anyone ever enter an arrangment like that unless you are a broke desperado? What risk does the staker have in this scenario? What a scam, hope Cate doesnt pay and uses that money to huff more bulbs.

just want to clarify some drug stuff mentioned so far itt

nitrous [oxide] is the gas a dentist would use, with a tank and mask for the patient. illicit use is by filling balloons from a tank or filling from legally purchased whipped cream charging canisters.

inhaling/huffing a balloon’s worthy of gas creates a very intense effect that lasts under a minute. it’d be impossible to play poker while directly under the influence, it would just be mental and physical lethargy from reoccurring abuse if anything. it would also be impossible to consume without detection in a casino setting unless you went to a car every time.

given the description of Cate by both parties and the OD of a related party, it really sounds like opiates and if that is the case, the staker is going to learn a $61,000 lesson as to why he needs to learn all about drugs, their effects, addiction and recovery, and become familiar with the DSM psych manual and common symptoms/signs of other psych disorders.

like it’s completely f***ing absurd one of your horses died and you haven’t completely reorganized your operation and cleaned house ASAP.

Yes he should drug test his stable daily and mandatory attendance to weekly D.A.R.E classes. Anything less would clearly be absurd.

You say your horses get 2/3 of their profits but she talks about getting 50% of the profit. Am I missing​ something or did you only pay her 50%? If she only got 50% then your argument "I know not everyone will agree with someone quitting poker and owing their makeup, but I also give horses 2/3 of their profit" seems irrelevant as that's not the deal you had with her.

On Twitter she posted emails from both arbitrators who each found she owes no make up if she quits poker. You claim arbitrators say she should buy out or stay on the stake. Are you disputing that the arbitrators ruled that she owes no makeup if she quits?

She is wrong when she says that owing 100% of make up if quitting is like a loan, not a staking deal, because unlike a loan the stakee never has to pay it back as long as they are prepared to carry on grinding, plus the stakee can easily effectively construct their own dismissal by playing badly or by showing signs of disinterest to the point where the backer expects the make up to get worse not better.

Contrary to what she said above (in pink), you gave her massive downside protection.

what's the point staking a player this caliber? it's a breakeven deal for you at best, with huge variance and having to deal with a very questionable persona.

Should have offered her head rubs although admittedly, that horse didn't work out well either.

All kidding aside, you need to start treating your staking like a business. You've got to cut your losses earlier or you're going to keep making these threads. There were plenty of warning signs it wasn't going to work out.

Move on Chad. Why would you want her continue playing your $$ while in MU and her head up her arse. Been through same crap with many horses take your loss move on. Why would you continue backing her with a drug issue?

for some reasons I am not surprised at all that she has been taking drugs

I'm going to try to parse this situation into something halfway comprehensible, Chad please feel free to confirm/correct any assumptions I make below about your intentions (it'd be great if Cate could chime in if she's reading this as well however unlikely that is just to get elaboration from both sides).

- Basically from Chad's perspective it seemed to him that after helping her, protecting her, and being patient with her for a year that Cate was betraying him by abruptly quitting a stake that she was not giving anywhere near her all to without the intention to buy out the accrued makeup or resume the stake at a later date.

- Meanwhile from Cate's perspective after going through a year of depression/mental health issues it seemed to her that Chad was betraying her by not honoring her wish to quit poker and have the makeup forgiven for what she considers very justifiable reasons that she subsequently had backed up by two arbitrators (from what I can gander it does seem that Cate's situation is ambiguous enough that she can get away with not paying the makeup without being outright labeled a 'scammer' in the technical definition of that term).

- Chad then threatened to out the situation and that's when things went to ****. Cate perceived that as what she specifically tweeted as being "if [not] extortion, at least extortion-adjacent". In that regard Cate is incorrect - there's nothing extortive about posting real texts and emails alongside a personal account to shame someone, and as long as Chad hadn't outright made stuff up or blatantly lied it's not illegal or slanderous (it's certainly not very classy but that isn't protected under law). Defamation is for the indisputably untrue, at worst all he's doing is "publication of private facts" or "intentional infliction of emotional distress" neither of which apply if Chad considers Cate's behavior a legitimate public concern for future backers. Furthermore, Chad has stated in this thread he doesn't expect Cate to pay him back and has accepted that fact, thus the only thing in play now is their reputations.

I tried to keep things as impartial as possible but it does seem that in the court of public opinion Chad will likely prevail, the optics are just so bad for Cate and it'll be hard for her to not look like anything other than a broke degen no matter what your perspective is on whether she owes the makeup or not.

She was on an upward curve at the time.

Maybe it wasn't just her lifestyle that affected her game, it may have been over confidence and delusions of grandeur and her false belief, IMO, that there is something noble about giving money made from exploiting people at poker, to charity.

After some success she started giving 3% to REG, said she was giving 20% of her live tournament winnings (iirc for Q4 of 2017) and pledged 100% of her tournament winnings from The Bellagio 5 Diamond https://twitter.com/catehall/status/939352114064531457

Some of the charity above possibly happening while being staked for cash games.

Why didn't she just start open jamming at 5/10 to get you to drop her? Maybe this was already her way of saying "you better drop me because that deal is nonsense".

The best part in all of this is cate despite her claims of making a million dollars a year and despite the fact she portrays herself to be some poker crusher she still needed to be staked for games she easily should have been able to afford.
she ran hot in some tournaments, she isn't that good at poker and that's why she quit.

Exactly what I was just thinking. Staked for 5/10?

Her twitter described her drug regime as LSD, ketamine and nitrous.

Chad, you agreed to arbitrate, and both arbitrators ruled she could quit without makeup. Given that, I don’t like your threat to out her as a scammer. She too agreed to follow the arbitrators’ rulings. Do you have any evidence that she would not have? Do you think she in good faith believes that you two did not discuss what was to happen if she quit poker in makeup, or do you believe she is lying about that?

I thought the arbitrators’ rulings were shallow and not all that thoughtful or deep.

Disclosure: I know Cate and do not like her. She has always been honest, however, and often to a fault. I have met Chad a couple of times but don’t know him.

Much appreciated Mason, and unfortunately this isn't my first regression toward the mean, but it is one I felt like justified a warning to someone who would likely potentially back her in the future.

Sick freeroll I just got losing $60,000 here. In all seriousness though, it isn't a freeroll, because people can lose and I can drop them. In the scenario I drop someone, they don't owe any money. Obviously someone can punt until I drop them, but I would out them for having no integrity and it would just be a more obvious way to scum someone.
In her case, I was staking her for games she's capable of beating, and she didn't want to put in the volume to beat them. She should have stuck to selling me action, and I shouldn't have had to bear 100% of the losses. I had her in one private home game with a HoF baseball player. The guy beat her in the hand and gave her back half the money she lost on her river call. How can you lose in these long term?
Also, we discussed her bankroll and she was not close to rolled to play the games she was playing under me.

Thank you for the clarification. My policy is no drugs. I can't control what people do when they aren't playing, I'm not their parents. The horses I have are almost all great people, and don't play on drugs. The one who passed did, but he was one of my bigger winners. It isn't something he shared with me though. It's also hard for me to accuse them of something when I'm not seeing it myself, but I do wish I did something.

Initially on stake horses start out getting 50% and the more money they make the bigger the percentage they get capping at 67%. I believe all my horses are at 67% because it isn't a lot of money to get there, but Cate never made any money on stake so I never paid her anything. However, she is correct in saying that she was playing for 50%, but a reason to get on stake would be getting 67% after not that much profit.

I was warned multiple times, but despite everything, I did think she was trustworthy. Live and learn. I have lots of success stories too, I'll survive.

Everything here seems fair from where I sit. I think it's possible she is outright scamming, but I'd put that around 20% probable. We'll see if she even returns the bankroll.

When did they both agree she could quit without makeup? Even if they did, that has nothing to do with my obligation to out someone for scumming a stake. Our agreement was that she owed the makeup in full - like mine is with everyone unless I drop them (which I have dropped people before).

Arbitration:
"I think a fair solution would either be to come to some sort of agreed upon buyout between for Cate to pay Chad to be free and clear of this for good, or the makeup will just stand and Chad will have the first option of putting any action on the stake he chooses if Cate were to ever come back and play poker again in the future, which seems likely at some point since nobody ever truly quits"

I agreed to this. She could buy out, or continue to be on stake and the makeup will stand. Says nothing about how she has to play again. Says nothing about how it's only cash action. Says nothing about how I'm not allowed to out her for backing out of the original agreement, and absolutely doesn't say she can quit and be absolved of her makeup because that would be absurd.

As I stated before, probably about a 20% chance she is outright lying to not have to pay - she has outright lied twice since then about me threatening a lawsuit and not agreeing to the arbitration.

Since I've told this story, I've had multiple people tell me she lied about having all her action in a bunch of games where I had huge pieces of her. Heard she lied about making $500k/year at a small lawfirm etc. I don't know if these are true, and I'm not digging through her stuff to find out, but I think calling her honest to a fault is just ignorance of her lies.

Isn't nitrous that stuff teenagers on holidays in places like Ibiza huff? And she's pushing 40? What a train wreck. Nothing worse than realising you was just on a heater and are actually not very good, but come on, pull it together.

Haha.. Cate is obviously right, I cant see why anyone in the poker industry would ever want to work with OP after what he just did. Great work calling out one of your horses as a druggie and liar just because you are pissed because you made one bad choice. Take the loss like a man instead. She doesnt owe you shiet. And also the profit shares are crap for the horse as well.

At no point is Cate right, never mind obviously right.

I have followed her on Twitter for a long time despite thinking she is a net negative to the poker world. I’ve often wondered why/how her tweets the last 6-8 months seem “off”. The revelation about her and drug addiction seems to justify everything.

Sorry to hear about the 60k loss, however I’m imagining this is going to bury her career both in and out of poker. Hope it was worth it for her, her life is spiraling out of control.

she obviously broke the agreement and is attempting to scam OP.

sounds like her massive drug problem is making her desperate enough to do stuff like this

This isn't the first time Chad has tried to assassinate a horse's character after entering a dubious agreement. He outs people's personal problems to help validate his decisions.