So for all those who think enforcing some form of restitution for makeup when a horse quits a staking deal think it’s perfectly fine for a horse to lose 20+BI the first week and quit the stake because they can’t make $ in the foreseeable future and the staker is on the hook for all that? So every horse will end up leaving in any makeup since it’s incredibly advantageous for them to do so. It would literally be impossible to make money staking under any terms if that was the case and horses left stables frequently enough.

The issue I have is this is not a normal situation. She put in very little hours from both accounts and did not even make an effort to play under the stake especially after she lost shot taking in a big game and just saw it as freerolling because she could run it up with no risk or just walk away if it went bad.

Yes, that's kind of the idea of providing the money. This is why you should always agree to a volume deal. If the horse fails to get the volume required he is on the hook, else the backer is. Determining a volume is also important for the split percentage because if the stake is short the backer should get the majority of the share and if it goes for infinity the horse should get nearly 100%.

The fact so many people agree with deals that have no volume requirement is laughable. If you're a backer and don't think about that you deserve to lose money.

Omfg this this this this this. Given what Chad has had to say in this thread, the way he actually went about it was pretty composed and decent. He could've absolutely destroyed her.

Cate gets to walk away without owing anything, but it's pretty unethical. There's a huge huge difference between her grinding her nuts off for ages and constantly losing and being so fed up with poker, and GGing after the paltry volume she put in whilst potentially on drugs. Really unethical imo.

Also just lol at the snowflakes wanting this moved out of NVG. It has news, it has views, and it has gossip!

Edit - this tweet is utterly laughable - https://twitter.com/catehall/status/1041809611517554697

If you can't trust someone's word, then I don't see what good writing it down does.

Volume requirements are like noncompetes... they’re good in principle but not enforceable and bordering on pointless in practice because if he said she has to play 40hrs a week under the stake and was deep in makeup its bordering on slavery.

I would rather chads deal then a volume requirement honestly although at some point it’s just best to come to an amicable solution because it becomes beneficial for the horse to just start punting to get dropped

And how are you going to prevent a horse from losing insane amounts to get dropped in case of makeup?

If you think nitrous might do a number on the brain, you should see people who do Ketamine. Their goal is to basically do enough that you go into what's known as a "K-hole", whereby the user is unable to move, talk, or do pretty much of anything for like 5 mins.

Dealer: "Seat 5 is all-in; action is on you, Seat 8 . . . . "

5 minutes later . . .

poker commentator #1: "What could she possibly be thinking about here? She's facing a cbet from Holz and a shove over the top by Peters, who has them both covered. Her 6d5d seems like an easy muck on the QhJh9s flop, given the action."

commentator #2: "And yet she remains motionless. Perhaps she doesn't want the table to know how light she's opening from early position? Uh, we might have to check the rfid . . . "

What do you do in business when someone scums you. Not much you can do except write it off don’t do business with them anymore and move on. Doesn’t make what she did ethical. Both deals volume deals and payoff a percentage of makeup are essentially the same... if you don’t see that your not really thinking about it hard enough.

Except owing 100% of makeup is a scam deal on it's own. I mean if a horse agrees to it then whatever but why would you design a deal where the horse has a significant chance of owing money, which is exactly what a staking deal is supposed to prevent.

I guess this is simply the nature of an unregulated and animalistic landscape.

- op has to protect himself from future horses scamming him.
- tries to ruin any horse that does him dirty in his eyes.
- has twice pointed a finger at someone's mental health problems after they were not able to make him money.
- both cases had ambiguous wordage/contracts.

The guy jumps to extortion when arbitration doesn't go his way. It's intense, and factual - I think it makes for a great story, and don't particularly care if it's right or wrong.

Is “scum” a common word usage as opposed to “scam?”

It’s to ensure the horse puts in volume and doesn’t quit the stake. It’s incredibly bad for the horse as it makes them unable to quit the stake but I’ve seen volume deals that are really bad too. The issue isn’t the principle but instead the percentage. If he had 50% of makeup has to be paid back this would be normal in a 50/50 split deal.

Ya scum is technically legal but morally wrong scams are illegal. Think it’s pretty common slang... but maybe just something I use to differentiate the two as both happen a lot

The way Cate and Chad decided to arbitrate was also silly. They should have picked a person known and trusted, with a good reputation, and asked them to make a decision. In the 2p2 community, someone like El Diablo or Gregorio. In the Maryland community, perhaps someone like Tim Bishop or Andrew Brokos. This structure where each one picks someone already sympathetic to their position and have them try to reach agreement on the basis of short written submissions is unlikely to reach a thoughtful result.

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

https://twitter.com/****ycakes123/st...79071735263232

lol cate xx

That’s not true. Going into a K-hole means you did too much. It is not a desirable effect.

Whippets and LSD is a helluva combo tho.

Or hire a profession arbitrator that knows contract law. This whole thing is armature hour. No written contract then when there is a dispute they bring in a couple of random joes to resolve?

The only question I have is:

When will ESPN do the 30 for 30 on The House of Cards?

So Cate Hall's telling MTT backers she's not backed for cash games, obviously so they think she's solvent, rolled for 5/10+ and is a winning cash game player.

Chad Power, as stated ITT, says he doesn't mind her lying about this, I'd guess because if she gets backed in MTTs it gives her a chance of winning big and paying off her make up to him.

But then she's giving equity away to charity, including 100%! here https://twitter.com/catehall/status/939352114064531457 and lecturing her Twitter followers on how little money we all really need!

She'd rather give money to Tchad than Chad.

I think that goes too far. There may be a rule in Maryland that gambling contracts are not enforceable. Applying such a rule here with these two parties would not be appropriate.

Jfc dude just stop posting.

Worst post itt, congrats.

Staking is difficult. If you could make money throwing money at horses and collecting 100% of their makeup when they fail it wouldn't be very hard.

Should she owe some makeup? Probably, but you need actual terms to enforce that.

Its the backers job to create terms where things like this won't happen.

Nobody discussing the -ev of publicly airing a staking dispute where it is possible that both parties are failing to follow cash transactions laws and regulations, unwittingly disclosing potential taxable events, and exposing themselves to potential investigation and enforcement actions. I suppose it's possible that people who can't write an agreement and just do things on text are keeping meticulous records of each session and reporting their profits and losses according to IRS requirements. But it doesn't seem very likely.