Chris is so wrong here it makes me sick, he broke all the rules of gambling in just his one rant.

Actually you're being quite douchey now! Of all the places available to deal with this they chose to post their mess in NVG. Serves them right.

It's actually a little different..
In poker you are playing against multiple other players
In sports betting you are betting against the "boss" and if you have proof that you were being freerolled (in this case there were multiple people owed money by this "boss" proves without a doubt that you were being freerolled)

The people owed money by Jason should not be waiting on Chris' payment to get what is theirs at all.
Any judge that understands a bit of sports betting and gambling in General would never award Jason with the payment.

lol no way. Post a thread like this in NVG and this is what you should expect.

Ones a corp and the other is friend.

there's really no reason to do that. or for Moneymaker to pay this guy a single cent.

When he decides he's not going to pay there is nothing he can do about it. Well, he could say "i'll post online that you didn't pay me!" but that's already happened.

This really isn't that complicated. If MM had won $25,000 from this guy he would just be at the back of the line, in the same boat as the people he already owes $40,000 to from booking bets he doesn't have the money to pay out.

Jason Young booked bets he couldn't cash if they paid off. In his scam he ALMOST broke even, Moneymaker found out he was getting freerolled, so he shouldn't think about paying.

Case is pretty much closed.

P.S. Moneymaker don't be dumb and agree to arbitration thinking about not taking a hit to your "reputation" in poker. no1 who would be in a position to make any decisions affecting your life would know/care about this.

This thread has me frustrated.. Timeline doesn't matter in this case

Say Jason owed money to others before booking Chris' bet.. Then obviously Jason was trying to freeroll.

Say Chris bet was first and he ended up not paying Jason first and then the others bet with Jason and weren't paid.. This also means Jason had insufficient funds to book the other guys' bet. Jason hasn't received money from Chris yet so he can't be booking bets based on having outstanding receivables.

This proves that Jason is a freeroller and although in the sports betting world most bookies do some sort of freerolling, when things like this happen the bookie is responsible to make things right which is to pay his clients off first and then do the collecting.
If there was a problem with the "boss" which doesn't even have evidence, that's also the bookie's responsibility.

Fin.

right they would prob lock him up for running a fraud book

If Chris doesn't owe Jason, then 100% owes money to other guys if some how can prove they are owed money and just not using it as a scapegoat.

Jason Young has posted here several times since I last posted.

He has completely ignored the requests to post the name of the bookie.

He has completely ignored the requests to post proof that he fronted the bookie the money for Chris' debts.

He has not addressed people's concerns that the bookie was a fictitious person.

He has not addressed people's concerns that Chris was tricked into booking bets directly with him, rather than this supposed bookie.

I don't think Jason Young is stupid.

I doubt he missed these questions, and I doubt he failed to answer them due to believing they were unimportant.

I think it is looking fairly likely that the "shady bookie" did not really exist, and in reality was Jason himself.

Chris had a 25k bet with the fictitious bookie -- NOT Jason.

If Chris lost 25k to a fictitious person, he does not owe the money, as fictitious people cannot collect money.

Jason is claiming Chris owes him 25k because he fronted the money for Chris' debt.

However, if the bookie is fictitious, there was no money fronted. No money ever changed hands. Chris made a bet with an imaginary bookie, and Jason made imaginary payments to the same imaginary bookie on behalf of Chris.

If Jason tricked Chris into betting with an imaginary bookie, then literally all bets are off. Jason cannot collect debts owed to an imaginary third party.

Jason might claim that he invented the "bookie" for legal reasons, seeing how many people keep going to jail these days for bookmaking. That would be an understandable excuse.

However, even if that is his excuse, the burden is now on Jason to show conclusively that he had all the funds to cover all bets with his imaginary "boss" on the date they were placed. If Jason cannot show that he had those funds, the bets should be considered canceled and invalid.

Chris placed these bets believing he was betting with an established bookie, not Jason himself. If he thought he was betting with Jason himself, he very possibly would have required more proof about Jason's financial condition prior to betting with him. Chris did not ask these questions because he thought he was betting with a trusted bookie, NOT Jason himself.

BOTTOM LINE:

Jason needs to do one of two things:

1) Prove that the bookie is real and that he really fronted money for Chris to this bookie on the date he claimed.
-or-
2) Admit that the bookie did not exist, and then instead prove that he had full and complete funding to cover all bets he was taking in April, 2012.

Anything short of the above creates a justified suspicion of scamming/freerolling, and Chris would be in the right to withhold payment until one of the above conditions are satisfied.

Without definitive proof that Jason was freerolling, there is no way Chris should not have to pay him. Using hearsay as an excuse is ridiculous and regardless, you made bets and lost, pay up. Next time know who you're dealing with before making bets or get an escrow, it's not that complicated.

This is not hearsay.

Jason wants Chris to repay him for $25k supposedly fronted for Chris' debt to his boss.

If the boss exists and the $25k was really fronted, then Chris owes the money.

If Chris was tricked into betting with a fictitious person, then the bet is also now fictitious, and Chris owes nothing. Additionally, Jason really fronted nothing, as you cannot front $25k to a fake person.

Jason can't say "I gave this guy $25,000 on your behalf", and then refuse to provide proof that he really did so.

Why is this so hard for you and others to understand?

"ooops"

Let me also say that I think it's very possible they were BOTH didn't have the funds at the time the bet was placed, and that the winner was going to be very unhappy either way.

If I had to guess, I would say that Chris was probably scrambling to come up with the 25k, and then stumbled upon the information that Jason was heavily in debt, and Chris suspected at that point he was being freerolled.

Still, this is immaterial to the discussion.

Jason wants Chris to pay him back for money fronted to a bookie.

If the bookie exists and the money was really fronted, Chris owes it.

If the bookie was fake, no money was fronted and Chris owes nothing.

It's really as simple as that.

Chris has posted it's 15k several times and JY has never disputed it itt if it was 25k JY would have the messages to post that it was 25k

Plus JY has had 18 months to prove his bookie is real and did split on him

Chris get the guy you spoke to who JY owes/owed 18k to

Its like school yard stuff your both grown men

Aren't these "bosses" supposed to be behind the scenes so to speak?? You bring up some good points but it might not be in JYoungs best interest(health wise if you catch my drift)to start outing names of "higher up bosses" in an already illegal enterprise.

I wish Erick Lindgren would've said, "I'm not going to pay Voulgaris because he was freerolling me because I know he owes some people money." This could've saved his reputation

Kilowatt just nails it. Very well said. The onus is absolutely on Jason to present evidence that supports his case. A name of a bookie is a good place to start. If he doesn't want to do it in a public forum, then at least to an arbiter. Having detailed records is crucial, and it's the Agent - as the market maker - who must maintain them.

However, one question to Kilowatt's post: If Jason cannot prove that the bookie is real, why even have a step 2 (proving Jason had funds to pay in April of 2012)? If there is no bookie, then Chris was engaging in business under completely false premises. Isn't this a form of fraud?

Had Chris known that Jason was the actual bookie (if true), he may have said either: no thanks, I don't want to make the bet; made a much smaller bet to be safe; or requested to see proof of funds at risk to ensure prompt payment.

--PP

Barry Greenstein shouldn't pay his debt to Fulltilt poker also

You guys are idiots, Jason is not going to OUT his bookie on here.

Barry Greenstein owes Fulltilt 500k. After Black Friday, Barry finds out that Fulltilt doesn't have funds and realizes that Fulltilt cannot pay its players. Barry owes nothing. Simple as that.

Everyone who is familiar with this is thinking the same thing

1) It's unlikely Jason was an agent. Poker players who go into the booking business don't act as agents usually, they will use their own bankroll and act as the bookie. They may say otherwise, but when they run out of money, the agent story is one of many they will tell people who they owe money to.

2) Everybody would do what Chris did. Everyone who gambles is paranoid of being free rolled. When they suspect that they are being free rolled, they will not pay. That's just how it is.

Bookies go broke all the time, and it's always over something stupid. That Jason gave Chris' name to people... man that is stupid.

There's some talk here about whether Jason's bookie was caught up in a recent string of arrests... that's unlikely.

Thanks to the principals and all posters for making my excercise time fly by. Love this thread. Having read the entire thread, I keep going back and forth on my opinion.

Here is my take: Bansooners makes some great points, and JY seems to be shady here. BUT, it takes a lot of proof not to pay a debt. Chris has to be SURE that JY was not going to pay if he lost. Need some more facts here. If no more facts available, than arbitration seems reasonable.

One aspect of this entire affair is to reaffirm my overall disgust at what I would call Vegas values. Perhaps it's because I just returned from a business trip to Vegas, and I really don't like the place.

But it's just so depressing to watch people gain a bit of fame and money, classic rags to riches story, then watch as the inevitable tragedy unfolds in slow motion. "Regression to the mean" is a cruel bitch, and few seem immune to her lure.

How many people, at the very top of the world, can take the money and run? Lock in a long term promotional agreement and then just free roll for a while, until the easy cash flow ends? But walking away with millions in winnings and sponsorship funds, a book deal, perhaps a future in motivational speaking, whatever. OK, you won't die mega rich, but you'll be set for the rest of your life! You won't have to do much work. Your family will not live through the stress of the next big score! It's all so easy!

Just take the money and run people!

It's the Helmuths and Negraneaus of the world that have staying power. Not because they are the best poker players, clearly they are not (although both are very good). It's because they are able to stay grounded. They know how to manage their money. They play just enough poker to stay relevant, they keep their name in the news, but they never over extend themselves, they know that the real money is not in poker winnings per se, but in everything around poker: sponsorships, branding, marketing.

Helmuth always taunted the young kids about their staying power, inevitably after losing a big pot. He was outplayed on the felt, but he knew it was a marathon, not a sprint. And where are they now and where is Helmuth?

It's like a Greek tragedy. The very qualities that drove these players to risk it all to win millions ensure few are able to keep what they've gotten. And we all love a Greek tragedy, so we watch the inevitable play out.

You have a wife and kids and you're betting thousands on a friggin' football game? Oh yeah, that's going to end really well.

--PP

Proof...?

Why would ftp lend Barry G money when he's a multimillionaire already sponsored by PS?

Why would Barry G need to borrow 500k when he's a multimillionaire already sponsored by PS?