That's perfectly fine.

But if everybody handled it that way, the game would break as soon as the spot is out of cash or it might not even start in the first place.

By your own logic, if the banks WILL lend me money, then you should have good enough reason to loan me money as well. Bank offered me 9% on 50K once, I declined when a friend offered me 5%. He made an easy $2500, I bought a house and saved thousands. Why would I give all that interest to the bank when I can give it to my friends?

Don't be such a close-minded simpleton. Pick and choose your spots.

FYYFF

and I really don't get this. I play poker fairly often. Mostly 1/2 NL with a $200 buy in. I NEVER have to borrow money (nor do I want to) because:

- I usually have money on me, $200 at least
- If I don't there are ATMs pretty much everywhere
- If I have to borrow money I shouldn't be gambling

Had a family member years ago stiff me for $12k. May be the main reason for my new policy. Blue collar can't afford to lose that kind of money.

So why do so many people have money problems that they need to borrow all the time. Degen life at work.

The guy borrowed multiple millions. You bringing $200 in your wallet has nothing similar to someone not having an extra $2 million on them. That amount of money is physically difficult to bring around or may be tied up in things. They can easily get the money, but they're not gonna bring $2m in cash just because hey **** it they might need it. It's apples and oranges.

The difference between 1/2 and 1k/2k is that you can easily carry around 10 buy-ins in your pocket only for one of the two.

People don't travel with millions in cash on them, that's not practical. Trying to get a $200k rebuy from an ATM doesn't work either and even a bank needs time to provide you with that money. Wiring money to a casino is an option sometimes, but nobody wants to send $5 million there. Lending money to people who are (supposed to be) good for it is a fact of life in the high stakes gambling community, even though people are obviously aware of the risk of not getting paid back. But if you estimate to win $100k at the table from somebody on average and there's a 1% chance of him bailing on his $1 million loan, you are still up $90k on average compared to $0 if the game doesn't get going.

OK OK I get it now.

Loan out your money all you want, just don't come onto sites like this crying like a little girl when you don't get paid back.

Wahhh, Leon didn't pay me back, waahhh.

I'm going on 2+2 and tell on him, that will get him good, then for sure he will pay me back.

Jcorb you're contributing nothing of value to the thread.

says the crying little girl who just told us on 2+2 that she was stiffed for 12k by someone.

Yeah, Leon should have just gone to the ATM and gotten $2 million. Not sure why they didn't think of that obvious solution.

Or just keep $2MM in his pocket, at least.

jcorb just ended this thread, can we get a lock mods?

Noone is crying, at some point it's just a logical next step to take. They made an educated, good decision to loan money, it's one of the rare times it didn't work out and they have exhausted all of their other options, so going public makes sense. It's just part of the 'loaning' game.

Good thing god gave him a “I’ve been cheated/hustled” face.

Breaking news on this one and it's pretty shocking...can't link my own article on it but perhaps someone else might or give cliffs. More to come too in the next few days...

https://www.pokertube.com/article/le...nd-aria-casino

Pretty sure this is the first time I have heard Rob Yong mentioned in this story at all...

holy **** if thats true

That is a crazy turning point. But the allegations about Matt being staked by others is really shady, as Leon is also staking people for cashgame, super highrollers etc. So that argument shouldn´t count in his favour. All the rest is pretty sick if he was prevented from leaving. I also dont think that the Aria would be involved in this. How much they gain every day? That is way more than that one million

Getting 'one over' on an owner of another Casino is different to doing it to a regular punter. Obviously we have no idea about backstories but it's not exactly the craziest thing to happen.

That's quite a turn of events

I think that many parts of the story are perfectly plausible and it settles one of the questions I've had throughout: how did Kirk afford those lawyers? Kirk assembled some of the top-top lawyers in Vegas - you really can't do better than the firm he hired; those guys don't come cheap, especially when it comes to civil litigation. So the above article provides a reasonable explanation of how that came to be.

On the other hand, why wasn't any of this in the original filings? Tsouker presented a defense of unenforcible debts. If the talk of settlement, the handshake, the witness, etc were true, you would pursue a defense of a contract. There was an offer, consideration, acceptance, etc, that would have been a reasonable defense to say that all the elements of a contract were in place.

It's possible that Kirk's lawyers didn't know about the settlement talks. It's also possible that Tsouker is completely full of it.

If the article is true, then I would be looking to see if Kirk changes lawyers. No reputable firm would continue with a client that didn't disclose settlement talks.

I don't really believe any of the counter claims from Leon. Leon was willing to settle in full, but instead Matt Kirk wanted only 33% just to then go on and bash him publicly? What's the motivation?

Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my article - there were 3 large court documents to sift through and 'translate' into something readable!

According to the filing, Tsoukernik told Yong he would pay Kirk in full, but Kirk approached Yong with an offer...'Yong told Tsoukernik that Kirk has proposed a discounted settlement' is the wording in the court document.

Anyway, if found to be true, it's a huge shift away from Tsoukernik being the person at fault here.

Btw, the court filing in the Clark County Court, Nevada is Case number: A - 17 - 756376 -C if anyone wants to check out the legal dealings from first to last, including Tsoukernik's latest filings. I did notice there might be website problems today though...

Money.

Lawyers for this kind of a case do not come cheap. It's perfectly reasonable that Kirk took the milli for lawyers in order to get 3 milli. Kind of twisted and genius at the same time - it's kind of a bridge loan from the very person that owes you money.

Don't get me wrong, Tsouker could certainly be full of it. I'm just saying that the allegation of a settlement and all that talk is plausible.