This is very often true in most situations. Ultimately it has very little, if any, bearing on what actually happened.

It's confusing why she would post the emails to her twitter and then moves on to worrying about negative google hits in relation to the story being published.

Your post presents a false choice, so no, I don’t think that either.

Hey mods, Powers has vented and Hall has been smeared and shamed. There is no news here, the views are all negative personal coments and pseudo-legal gobbledygook, and gossiping about Hall's drug problems is distasteful. So why not move this to Transaction Feedback and Disputes where it belongs. Or just close it.

*Powers defended himself after a 20 tweet long rant from cate last night, and there is ongoing discussion still about staking agreements

Imagine being a guy trying to shut down an interesting and entertaining internet thread for no reason at all.

Slow pony.

I don't know she just reminds me of a female version of Maurice Hawkins. She seems slimy and for the life of me how on earth did she get this guy Chad Power to stake her $60k for cash games! That's absurd. And I'm not knocking anyone for mental health issues but it seems very convenient that she loses this stake and all of a sudden stops playing poker for the most part, under this mental health stuff.

Anyone who would ever stake her again needs to have their head examined.

Paying him ~$15K as a permanent settlement and exit from the whole situation would IMO alleviate the current situation of him being unhappy and feeling cheated and her being unhappy because she has had her reputation damaged somewhat, albeit she hasn't acted "illegally".

People would think more of her if she did this and of him if he accepted it with good grace and admitted some of his errors, which to be fair he's already in part done ITT.

$15K is a ball park figure of the average value of the downside protection he provided her with during the stake.

before she tweeted didnt he threaten to out her tho?

and to your last line, it seems pretty simple. they agreed to arb; he doesnt get his way, yet clings to one line thinking he is owed, while completely ignoring the circumstance of that point (that she keeps playing on her own or for someone else).

short of forcing her to play, it seems ridiculous to be entitled to 100% makeup ever. thats literally the risk of backing. why would anyone play backed if they owe it all if they lose? being out of the state of mind is one thing, but the onus is on the backer to not punt their own money also.

and as has been said, a buyout should not be 100% because it is his choice also. the only reason he should be entitled to 100% of the makeup is if hes still taking 100% of the action

Why would anyone take a loan out on a house if they risk losing their job and eventually their house but still owe back 100% of the unpaid loan? Why, additionally would banks loan in the first place if this is a possible outcome?

You aren't thinking through this very carefully.

People often agree to be backed because they have no other options or ability to play without it and are therefore willing to be on the hook for being liable to repay makeup should they decide to quit (for any reason). It simply does not make sense to stake someone if this clause doesn't exist as the risk of being freerolled in the already highly scummy poker world is too high.

Wait
If you get 50% profits surely you also have 50% of the losses on a stake when it comes to settlement?!!

So if the deal was 50/50 she can just pay 30k and be off the stake and play poker

And stake is if you don't have the BR but beat higher stakes comfortably, just makes sense in terms of hourly. But if you have 2/3 of your profits you sure as hell don't have 100% of your losses but 2/3 seems really obvious to me, in what universe does she owe 60k and not 60k*her action

you can parse the deets all day long but only one I needed was chad agreeing to binding arbitration and the going back on his word when things didn't go his way.

This more then all the he said she said blah blah speaks to his general character and trustworthiness as a human being . imho

that is an absolutely terrible analogy and not even correct. if you are foreclosed on, you still dont even owe 100%. banks get interest. not 50%. they win by having lots and lots of small risk investments and losing on some and winning on most.

so someone doesnt have the capital to play on their own but they will assume liability for multiple thousands in case they lose? they get backed to make money but will pay back all they lost if they do? thats the same as playing for yourself and giving away half of winnings. if you have access to the money to repay fully, you have the bankroll to play the same games.

what an idiotic post

I don't care if there was some loophole to pay nothing, I would never even consider not throwing him something. Yes, even if I were quitting poker forever.

I think before this went public 15k would have been fair. Fact that it went public she should give him 25k.

Obviously it isn't paid back in full and there are other options that come into play like foreclosure and bankruptcy but I'm talking in principle. She is stating she owes nothing. It's clear she owes everything (in principle). Not even Chad expects her to ever actually pay everything, but some agreed upon settlement would be the solution.

Also, the horse isn't assuming liability if they lose. They are offered (very generously by the way) makeup and time to dig themselves out without ever dipping into their own pockets. The only time they are responsible for what they've lost out of their own pocket is if they voluntarily leave the stake while in makeup.

Then let him rant about her on twitter, or in Transaction Feedback and Disputes. Discussions about staking agreements belong in the staking forum. Mods have moved endless threads like this, and this one would be moved too if a mod hadn't started it. There is no News in this thread, the views in this thread belong in the staking forum, and gossiping about somebodies drug problem is, well, I was going to say it was beneath this forum until I stopped myself. Anyway you get my point.

Nobody is saying he's better at her than poker.
She's way better.

It is comical she wouldn't even put up her own money for it.

"spiritual and mental health crisis" lol

Maybe I missed something. I obviously get that as a staker you don't want to give out the option of a horse walking away after losses. However, you get this problem in other industries with backing and performance fees. Usually if the horse is seen to be talented (not the case here) then some sort of partial reset is needed and negotiated as some reputational cost.

In this case however, I'd just take the 60k on the chin. Surely a worse outcome would be the horse returns to the agreement and continues to lose money? I see nothing to indicate that further 'grinding' will have better results.

Can someone here explain the logic of not having to pay makeup if one quits poker for good? As in how is this a thing? I can't imagine many contracts where you can just say I give up and get out from under what you owe.

Seems like a freeroll for the player if they just want to say **** it?

Cate is open about the drugs she uses. I don’t imagine she views her drug use as a problem.

I am pretty sure she said on Twitter a while back that overdoing the taking of a certain substance gave her some severe health problems, or, made some existing ones worse. And she has stated on recent Tweets that she was not a great horse.

Both parties are partly culpable IMO. She was not careful or disciplined enough with her lifestyle and health while being paid for a job of "work" and contravened certain (allegedly) verbally agreed terms.

He should have had a much better and more sophisticated contract in writing, to equitably cover more of the possible scenarios.

its simple and has been touched on here too. if you stake someone for poker winnings and they no longer play poker, you dont get your money back. thats why its always said that any further action should go to the backer first, as he is in line to recoup losses. thats part of the business if someone chooses to quit, the only problems arise when they keep playing afterwards outside of the stake. making or losing money, the action is to the previous backer first. if you choose to play on your own, thats where the buyout comes in because you think you are +ev and that ev is not going to the person that paid for the losses. changing stables means someone else is collecting your ev. quitting the game means you are no longer playing what was agreed upon. it generally wouldnt be on the horse to repay then, but (as above) any new action should go to the backer.