As super scummy and cringy as this thread is, l still dislike live staking less than online stables.

The only one of those I know anything about is the income at her law firm, and she is one hundred per cent correct about that.

Feels like this agreement does run counter to the "standard" staking rule that a horse can quit poker without makeup liability. However, I think that standard is basically because what choice do you have? If the horse is quitting poker, they shouldn't care in the least about you trashing their reputation within the poker staking community since (in theory) they will never be accessing that community again. If she wants to come back to poker, the makeup number comes back. So, it seems like (in her case) she would be most likely to just say "well I'm not paying, post whatever you want because I'm done with poker".

As well, I feel like the backer here should realize that this horse isn't capable of winning, and be considering dropping them anyways. That the horse also realizes they aren't capable of winning at the same time and wants to stop feels a little like the backer is trying to get off the hook for free. The alternative is for the horse in this case to be forced to stay within the stake and lose until the backer cries uncle. This doesn't even require the horse to be deliberately punting - there's significant evidence that they aren't a winning player, are in a bad place personally, and are going to be in a situation where they have little to no motivation to play their absolute best.

.

so she quit a 500k job to get staked at 5/10 wow lol

I'm probably nit picking but I wouldn't hold this part against someone. I've lied to people about being on stake before. It's none of their business. Backer is aware of this and still gets their cut.

you are not nitpicking. She doesnt have to tell anybody about being staked.
The only nitpicking person is the OP who is trying to slander her name.

This staking thing only goes for cash games right??
So she could win the main event and still doesnt have to pay anything.
That would be funny.

yea, this just doesn't make sense at all. she apparently has the life roll to play 5-10 and in this particular staking agreement, it was made clear she would have to pay back any makeup if she decided to quit. so what was the point of agreeing to this staking arrangement in the first place?

As I understand it, the open question is whether Cate owes Chad make-up if she quits poker entirely.
The standard answer is "no", but Chad claims under his agreements the answer is "yes".
So there was a dispute about the terms of the agreement.

The important point is that both Cate and Chad agreed to binding arbitration on this point.

All the stuff about her backstory and what stakes she's paying and drug use seems pretty irrelevant.

It sounds like Chad didn't get the result he wanted from the arbitration, and has now decided to not only back out of the pledge to abide by the arbitration, but publicly trash his horse's reputation in the process (a player who is supposedly quitting poker anyway).

This dispute should have ended when the arbitrator's ruling came down, and Chad blowing it up in the forum is unprofessional for multiple reasons.

I know squat about staking, but it seems to be a sh*t deal for the backer that a horse can go into debt and just walk away from said debt by say, "I don't want to do this work anymore."

Seems like a loophole for every horse.

i dunno, I'd want to know if a horse was using drugs on the felt and taking a prima donna approach to make up "let me play nosebleeds to clear this makeup or I'll just not play"

/end of thread

Imagine giving up a 500k salary to be staked at 5/10...

Source? We need some of his horses to speak up on here. If it was clear to every one of them that they would owe makeup if they quit, would be suspect that Cate somehow didn’t catch that in their verbal converstion about the terms.

What’s also suspect is that Cate claimed to have a healthy bankroll to play her usual stake, but was getting staked for 5/10? Or was she playing 5/10 under stake to try to win back the makeup after losing at nosebleeds?

The part about Cate giving drugs to the other horse who OD sounds like character assasination, which I’m surprised no one has addressed. That’s gotta feel bad for a SJW

Imagine wanting this person to keep playing on your stake:

I hear that she's "on another planet" and "couldn't beat $1/$3 right now" from multiple regs who don't even know I stake her when I do return to the casino. All this is around the time she is huffing nitrous to the point where she was struggling to walk.

unless stated very clearly, stakee does not have to pay anything when she/he quits poker, however when stakee wants to play poker again, staking agreement just proceeds again imo

otherwise you sort of have a freeroll as a staker, the only risk you then have is getting into liquidity troubles

Can you please give some examples?

Feel like the majority of this threads venom is directed toward the staker, where I believe he has a lot of valid complaints. Playing high/drunk and over the agreed upon limits should certainly have a lot of consequences. Based on the volume she was generating, it seems clear to me that she was just using this stake as a freeroll. Additionally, it just feels gross that she could "quit" poker, come back and just play tournaments and Chad loses 60k because he got caught up in a ****ty part of her life.

With that said, it does seem rather surreal how little they were communicating over a long period of time with that amount of money on the line. I am sure OP has done very well over his lifetime in staking, but I think it's a lapse in judgement to be this absent and hands off.

Here's what I wrote in the other thread:

One of Chad's former horses here. I was staked by Chad from November 2013 to May 2014, and then again from December 2015 to May 2016.

At the end of my first stint I was dropped by Chad with a small amount of makeup, which I knew I was not responsible for. At the end of my second stint I decided to leave the staking arrangement to get a job on the other side of the country. I was about $4k in makeup and knew it was my responsibility to pay back, which I did. I should also point out that both times I left the stake I thought I was "quitting" poker.

I've gotten to know at least a dozen of Chad's current or former horses over the years, and I am willing to bet a large sum of money that all of them were/are aware of Chad's policy when it comes to getting dropped or voluntarily ending the staking arrangement in makeup. (No, I've never met Cate)

This is perhaps the dumbest statement I've seen going around. How is this a freeroll for the staker? If a horse continues to lose, the staker will eventually drop the horse, in which case the horse owes no makeup and the staker loses a bunch of money. Therefore, it's obviously not a freeroll.

Ironically, the way you think it should be gives horses an actual freeroll. For example, say I'm deciding between going to law school and playing poker. I can just get a staked and take a huge shot. if I crush it then I'll keep playing poker and if I get buried then I'll just quit and go to law school without owing any money. That is the definition of a freeroll.

I just moved the 19 posts from the other thread to this thread. The posts get "sorted" chronologically so they all appear before KyddDynamite's first post. The "original" posts, of course, are now posts 1-19 in this thread and KyddDynamite's long post is now post 20. I think those other original posts are worth capturing in this thread. I hope how the posts got sorted into this thread is not too confusing.

I think her tweeters said that she wanted downside protection. This is likely because she does not understand how variance works. Live poker lives forever.

i hate chad power's entire stable concept. it's terrible for a poker room (good for chad though- doesn't make him a bad guy) but i'd do business with him before i staked some delusional druggy who isn't good at poker.

Wasn't Cate Hall the woman who claimed to be making $500k a year? Why in the world would you need to be staked? Somebody has money management issue, or a gambling/drug addict issue.

I can vouch a horse was treated badly. I've spoken with them personally, but it's their story to tell.

When someone posts very specific details about a seemingly large business operation, I hope they realize that third parties, outside the insulated world of poker, may take notice ....

Staking is an activity which can be legal as a business if the activity is properly tailored to fall within the appropriate facts and circumstances. Recent developments in the law have highlighted how important planning and discretion can be. Due care is required to color only between the lines.

A careless word can be dangerous. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html The perils of getting "famous while in the act" also should be made clear to anyone involved without careful analysis. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers

I'm just here for the head rubs.