Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuma
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.
For anyone asking about this, here is my other dispute.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...hread-1368332/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punker
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.
She's capable of winning. Live $5/$10 isn't hard to win, but she gave up trying. When I thought she was sober I put her in a bigger game. Had I know she thought she could walk away and quit with no responsibility, I'd have not put her in. Had she known this, she should warn me or decline to play huge. It's scumming to take a huge shot like that and bail without even playing one normal session after. As I said before, staking isn't a big freeroll, and my deal is structured around having the ability to give people shots in bigger games. It's much different than just grinding a lower stake consistently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMMed13
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.
I don't have a problem with it honestly, but I'm not going to call someone "honest to a fault" who does. I agree it's no ones business, and I told her I didn't mind what she told people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve0
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?
Lower your risk of ruin. Freeroll a backer. Get to play bigger games and live up to a certain reputation you're trying to build. What's the point of me putting up 100% of the loss for 50% of the win or a future 33% of the win if I have no other incentive? I was already getting 60%+ without taking the full loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMPK
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.
All the drug stuff is relevant. This post is
1. a response to everyone she brought up on Twitter
2. a warning to anyone who would consider backing her in the future when she forgets what arbitration rules.
How did I back out of the arbitration pledge? As far as blowing it up, again, this is my response to her. She didn't have to take to Twitter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExit
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
Three have either here or via twitter. When I say 40+ horses they aren't all current, I mean since I've started staking. I don't want to pressure any of them to get involved, and many don't have twitter/2+2.
She came to me initially for a $5/$10 stake. She had a standard downswing, and then stopped playing for months. Eventually she played again for a couple weeks then took months off again. She was in a bigger game that was softer than the average $5/$10 by a good margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
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.
At this point I already have $50k+ tied up in her, and I know she can win when she plays well, and I expect she will play well again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbomb
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.
She had a mental breakdown and I respected her space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trob888
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
Worth saying that your heart wasn't in it on your first stint, and I dropped you as a courtesy so you didn't have to grind out of the hole because you were a good horse and friend. One the second stint you took on your old makeup figure, but when you quit in makeup you didn't have to pay the original makeup figure back.