Yesterday but she has since deleted it either cause she sold out or (most likely) cause she got backlash, all I could find was this (her replying to a reply to her saying essentially

" selling for five diamond xyz at 1.1 just in case I play, I am a sucker for nostalgia"

I'm assuming she deleted the tweet. Perhaps she received backing and didn't need to leave it up. One person did reply saying he would take all the action.

The tweet was at this link but is no longer there: https://twitter.com/catehall/status/1071242559425400837

I bet if she ships it she'll pay back Chad all the money she owes him...

Why would she pay Chad? She told him HE owes HER money now.

We must have played her at different times
I played her a few years ago and she was far from a force of nature


As for the bolded-maybe Chad does a ton of charity work or whatever but he's not doing s good thing with all this staking
It's horrible for poker even if all the players are honest/do not collude

The isn't some benevolent endevor on his part

I do hope the huge hypocrite scum Cate pays up

Besides ethics, can anyone explain to me why she should pay up and/or why she should not play poker and/or sell action?

So she screwed someone over, her reputation should be tarnished, yet nothing happens. It seems she was able to sell her action anyways and there are no consequences except for some people writing about it on the internets. If she ignores her conscience or somehow convinced herself she is right, what are the downsides for her to keep going on? As long as people are willing to buy action, reputation is meaningless.

You can't just say "besides ethics." This is all about ethics. Without ethics a community, society, world, etc. devolves into chaos.

So what does this community do to prevent such behavior? She has literally 0 consequences, apart from some people thinking she is scum, which doesn't appear to bother her.

So if she doesn't care, doesn't face any real consequences, what is to stop her from going on like this? Clearly the second she put up another offer someone bought her action regardless of the crap she pulled. If she can sleep at night, why shouldn't she keep ****ing over people that clearly do nothing to stop her.

this

change thread title ffs

“Cate hall”s ethics”

This is why unethical people are so dangerous to society. Unfortunately, until someone creates some kind of public database of Poker Credit Scores there's nothing that can really be done except continue to call people out when they behave badly.

And she didn't face zero consequences. There's a large number of people now who won't trust her. Sure there will be plenty of others to lend her money or buy action, but her number of potential lenders has decreased.

Ok at this stage i think she is just an annoying low life. I didn't expect her to return to poker.

She goes on about being so altruistic on her social media. She is a complete fake.

I am a female poker player and some of the things she has implied about women give the impression she thinks she is superior in intelligence and character in comparison to other women and just up her own arse.

She is just a kid whose parents never taught her NO....you have rules.

Not too fond of chad. But it's clear he was taken in by a wholesome 'nerd girl ' persona.

I am not the poker police etc but there are just some things you should do and not do.

Don't boycott her ..don't do anything ....she will bust herself again soon.

Did she play tournaments while on stake? Were those tournaments included in her staking agreement? Unless her deal specified some sort of poker exclusivity where she wasn't allowed to play games not covered by the stake, such as tournaments or non-NLHE games, then I see no problem with her playing tournaments or jumping into a PLO game.

Cate is on the record as saying that she owes makeup if she goes back to playing the cash games covered by their arrangement. If she gets her groove back in tournaments, she may go back to him and say that she is ready to resume playing cash games and he needs to give her more stake money. Then, it will be on him to either give her more money or to end the staking agreement, which would mean abandoning a claim to any makeup.

So she can go play tournaments and PLO for the next decade and then when her new backers refuse to keep giving her money she can go back to Chad and demand that he puts her in NL games even though she swindled him out of $60k a decade before? Sounds like a great scam.

How 'bout this for a concept: just pay the $60k ! It's only $60k, ffs. What person that has the potential to make half a million a year can't come up with $60k? This is just pathetic.

I don't think she swindled him.

I think there is a valid argument (and a standard in the staking industry) that if you are quitting poker then you don't owe makeup, but the caveat is that if you return to poker then you do either owe makeup or have to return to the stake in makeup. But I don't think there is a valid argument that you can switch from one type of poker to another when you are a horse in makeup. Cate can play tournaments on her own dime, but only if she is continuing to try to clear make up by playing on the stake.

I also don't see why it is so impossible that Chad does in fact owe Cate money for losses on the stake, especially if their agreement included her playing on her own dime and then billing him for the action. Where is the evidence that she was lying? What reimbursement procedures were in place, or was she only supposed to be playing with cash that Chad had already advanced her, and if so why does she apparently think that that was not the case?

And, if Chad does owe Cate money to reimburse losses on stake, then doesn't a failure to repay said losses constitute a significant breach of their contract and certainly justify Cate playing a 10k tournament on her own dime / selling action while she waits for the situation to be rectified.

lol just because someone earned an income at one point does not mean they could easily do it again in the future, especially if they are not in the same career.

There are no procedures in place, as far as I understand it. There may be social norms within a gambling culture, but I don't think Cate is under any obligation to treat those norms as binding, especially if she objects to the culture itself and doesn't think it makes sense. She may be ostracized by the degens, hustlers, and gambling addicts who make up a lot of the poker world, but that doesn't make her ethically wrong.

blatantly removing herself out of the arrangement makes its unethical

All in all.. I agree with Kelvis, there are no consequences except from some people on twitter and in 2p2. She is likely still able to sell action (lol..) and she can play what and wherever she want.

Facebook, instagram, snapchat, twitter, spam, etc. may have ruined the internet for many - but - This reply is why I love the Internet, and what keeps up my faith about the future of the internet.....+1
I must say Thank You sir for your comments
( if you are not a "sir" please let me know the correct pronoun to use )

Everyone is bad here'

-Chad looking for a refund is him trying to freeroll Cate. If she won he'd of gotten money,
now unhappy with results he wants his money back. He shoulda dropped her way earlier because she was a bad horse.

-Cates bad for being a morally wrong, stuck up "B"

Any of her future backers are complete idiots and deserve to get taken for dealing with Cate after how she handled this whole situation, and on top of that admitted to having not study or improve and has mental problems admittedly. I if you give her money you are a complete moron at this point.

there should have been two separate bankrolls. one for normal stakes and the other for 10x the normal stakes

noone would want to grind away a 30k debt at 5/10 after losing that at 50/100