as far as i know they did not.

my response was to the person that said it shouldn't matter whose money she was playing to dentale which is absurd.at the time he did say he wanted her to put up HER money when they played. even if they didn't have an agreement to do so it makes a big difference as to how she will play.

she not wrong for being staked when she played dentale if she didn't agree to this. but considering she lied about being staked it would not surprise me if she had an agreement with mike to play her own money and then did it anyway.

the poker world is filled with such frauds and scumbags so cate fits right in.

tries to act like she's this great poker crusher and despite her lawyer money and jesus run in tournaments she still needed to be staked for 5/10 nl. just pathetic.

That person was me. Maybe it changes the play for some people but that wasn't the question. The question was whether Dentale would care if she sold action when that was allowed, and the answer is that he shouldn't be upset at all if that was the case. If they made an agreement (explicit or implicit) to both put up 100% their own money then he has something to be upset about.

100+ posts and no reference to a horse being on ketamine.
I am disappointed.

Op trusting her in game of poker was his first misstep and top of that all drugged up he is just toasted. Everything glitter ain’t Gold

I have no idea who Chad is and know nothing about him

Didn't read all the deets but I did see where he allegedly agreed to binding arbitration, didn't like the outcome, then went down the path of public shame. That's low rent on his part (even for someone that swims in the murky waters of poker staking)

Regarding Cate, all I know about her is what I've seen on TV and other media.

She came across as a righteous person, and was a much needed breath of fresh air in the poker world.

I hope she finds the right help and improves her mental health. Left untreated, those struggles can be overwhelming (as is the case with any disease)

I also hope she continues to tell this Chad fella to pack sand.

Obviously Cate comes off awful here, but without a volume requirement not sure how you enforce the "can't quit poker without paying back markup" clause. If they agreed she needed to put in x hours/week then he'd have some recourse, but otherwise even before formally quitting she put in 20 sessions on the year I think I read? That's almost quitting poker already, although obviously there were some extrenuous circumstances.

But yeah dropping 30k on a shot for a stake rather than selling action as you've done before and then quitting immediately is a pretty unethical and scummy thing to do, even if there's not really much recourse. It was almost certainly premeditated (either I bink and I'm out of mu or I lose and quit) and she was likely playing suboptimally to ramp up variance, even if it was subconsciously.

Arbitration ruled and that's binding however how anyone is taking Cate's side on anything other then her owing the money in this is beyond me.

Glad you did at last, won the thread imo.

+1 to this. What makes it even worse is that he has dozens of horses. All you have to do is have one template contract drawn up, even if you tweak the numbers for different horses. Its mind boggling to me that you'd stake dozens of people for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars without having a clearly written contract with every contingency stipulated. Such a lack of basic common sense makes a dispute like this entirely predictable, if not inevitable.

This

yeah it was a grudge match. If i'm playing a grudge match against someone I want to win THEIR money not someone else's, let alone how it makes her decisions "easier"

They said we could negotiate an amount (I offered half) or she could stay on stake and I would have the same action.

I only know what she posted on twitter pretty much, and I'm not on there much. I didn't know what she did, but I made it clear that drugs are not allowed on stake. I also say this is a rule of mine on the Thinking Poker iirc podcast years before I stake her.

I completely agree with this.

Might want to read the "deets" because this is an awful take.

Chad’s point is that he is not seeking payment from Cate any longer and in that sense he is following the arbitrators’ rulings. And he is technically also correct in that nothing in either his agreement with Cate or the arb rulings prevents him from publicizing it, or from retaliating when Cate does so, or from accusing her of being a scumbag.

Being technically correct is a little different from being a class act, however, and I suspect that simply letting the issue go rather than dramatizing it might have been a better course.

For whatever reason, controversy follows Cate around like a shadow and has for many years. I once counted her among my friends, but we had a huge falling-out over a similarly dramatized issue. I do not like her, but I do trust that she is telling what she believes to be the truth.

I’ve met Chad a couple of times and don’t have any reason to believe he’s anything less than honest here as well, FYI.

For any numbnuts out there that thinks that having a written contract solves all, you’re seriously mistaken. More verbiage often simply leads to further linguistic ambiguity that can be exploited after the fact.

seems that you sort of answered your own question, in addition to some of the other information adduced in the thread.

That being said, playing poker can be a lot less stress than exists in some firms where someone is making mid-six figures. I don't know what size firm she was at or what sort of law they focused on, but the grind extracts a mental toll if it was BigLaw. Granted, she is/was still a kid (anyone under 40 is a kid to me), but being young does not exempt one from the mental stressors...which can contribute to the rates of drug abuse seen in the profession (I know of some who STILL cannot practice in certain federal courts here in Texas because of drug use in the late 80's and early 90's).

Further, there are some who simply cannot handle windfall income. Again, don't know her situation, but know many who had large sums drop in their laps and did not do well with it due to immaturity. When the money is rolling in, you get to where you believe it is never going to stop..until it DOES stop.

I can easily see why some are drawn to staking agreements. Many years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I did very well in bowling at both the professional and amateur levels. I briefly had a staking/sponsorship deal but quickly grew to hate it. On the one hand, it was nice to know my expenses were covered, but on the other, it added an additional level of pressure that didn't previously exist. I quickly returned to just paying my own way even though it meant ~$2K-$3K in expenses each week between travel and entries. Some of those same lessons are why I pay my own way in poker...

Staking deals and even just buying percentages of someone for tournaments is an investment just the same as the markets, whether stocks, ETF's or other commodities. Sometimes the investment pays off and sometimes, despite due diligence, the funds are circling the bowl. As much as everyone WANTS to make money, sometimes you just have to chalk your loss up and move on. It happens. And yes, start-ups, by analogy, would be in the same category...venture capitalists fund businesses every day that hemorrhage funds, with the start-up going under. Very rare is the instance that the VC entity is going to be able to recoup anything if the persons in the start-up go on to something profitable...the contracts are just not set up that way. A horse is no different than a start-up...good concepts but not always something that scaled with proven results.

The arbitrators said she could walk without repaying makeup.

In my professional life I've dealt with investor disputes and I agree that decision.

I agree with this, and that's the point I made to her in my last email, or tried to make to her in our last email. I tried to convey that I wanted both of us to keep it classy, but i'm not going to sit there if she goes down the scummy path.

I think what you're describing is exactly what buying action is. I used to buy Cate's action. I'd put up 70% of the money and get 70% of the profit. If I lost, I lost. Staking is different. Now I'm putting up 100% of the money for somewhere between 33% and 50% of the profit, and that giant markdown doesn't come for free. It comes with terms etc and one of the terms I had for that arrangement is that you cannot leave the stake in makeup. There are a variety of other rules like - you can't get buried and never play - that aren't discussed terms, but just thought of as integrity of the agreement. If someone wants to loophole around those unwritten rules, I'm not saying I have legal recourse over them, but I am say that is a scummy thing to do and I'm not going to sit quietly and let you scum other people like that too.

lol at the Dentale stuff and Cate playing on a stake being relevant

after that debacle aired, the entire poker world would have lined up around the block to play him heads up for any amount

in the abstract, i suppose it might be marginally relevant, but as the match existed, he got owned by a better player who, if they played long enough, would have won every nickel he has

It is a bit funny and a bit sad that this even has to be said.

I don’t understand how Chad justifies getting paid 100% markup in his agreements when it’s only worth 2/3 it’s amount to him. (Anyone who has staked knows when horses leave or go to other stables paying 100% markup is ridiculous and unfair from a math perspective) I could understand if you actively coached and she was a much better player then before but not the case here. Other then that I tend to agree with him over cate in principal. He fulfilled his obligations as staker where she did not as stakee. However practically this always ends up as a write off and is the cost of doing business. Cate acting like she was the victim here is telling of her entitlement.

So he's just supposed to sit back and let her accuse him of extortion and being a usurper when he's running a staking business which is based squarely on his reputation?

Kind of incredible that $60k of "debt" can be built up without any of the parties caring to put any of it on paper.

Would be so incredibly easy to at least account for some of the more conceivable scenarios, for example the drugs. When you say "no drugs", what do you mean with that? What happens if the horse actually breaches this? Is there a penalty, does the stake get halted temporarily or stopped entirely.

You agreed to arbitration because you lacked the foresight and now you've made a threat whining about it. At least you've given potential horses a fair warning you're a disaster in the event an irregularity occurs. Even if you're right about this instance, you really did this to yourself to some extent.

Possibly a legal angle by Cate. Being a lawyer she was likely aware of all the permutations of the staking arrangement of which one very important one is what happens if I am in MU and want to quit? Since this was a verbal agreement according to Chad and not in the written contract Cate likely knew if this ever came up she could get out and arbitrators would rule in her favor.

Very strange that a written staking agreement does not include a very likely scenario. Seems like these things should have time limits, like one year at a time or set number of hours played?

A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that Chad didn't start this. Cate posted a long thing on twitter trashing Chad, my understanding was this thread was his defense. I haven't had any direct financial dealings with Chad but I know a good amount of people who have and have heard nothing but great things. I don't understand how anyone can read this exchange and think Chad looks bad.

My own experience with Cate is that she wildly overreacted to what should have been at best an entirely inconsequential or even nonexistent dispute between the two of us. Your last tweet was clearly an attempt to work out the problem, and had I been in her shoes I would have deleted my tweets and met you to try to work something out.

My more general thought in situations like this is that both parties should take some deep breaths and take the urgency out of the situation. There’s no particular need to instantly respond to everything that may ultimately need a response; that simply feeds the outrage machine.