Whatever happened to the guy who was owed 18k? Isn't that the entire basis of your argument? If you have your dates mixed up then there's really no reason for not having paid back in April.

Does anyone think that possibly the "boss" is named Jason Young?

I get what you are saying, but the question is not would Chris have attempted to collect. The question is would he have been able to collect. If the answer is no, it doesn't matter whether Chris would have wanted to get paid or not. At least that's the way I see it.

In the same way, if Moneymaker had won money on bets and Jason could prove that Moneymaker was insolvent when he made the bets and thus would not have paid if he lost, I don't think Jason would have to pay Chris the money. The fact that Jason was planning on attempting to collect from Chris wouldn't mean that he should pay Chris...because even though he would attempt to collect, he wouldn't have been able to.

Yea thats a good point. What if Chris had won and Jason found out he was broke and couldn't have paid had he lost?

Are you sure about this? Do you think that if bookies who owed bettors thought that the bettors were broke that they would/should not pay?

I would never bet with someone online, however, if I placed a bet with someone and then lose I'll pay. That said, if the person I"m betting with is proven to be broke (as it has been proven here) I'd never pay and probably make an example out of them somehow. Knee cap punishment maybe. At very least, I'd come to a forum the person partakes in (or his friends and potential victims) and make it clear to the community to prevent this from happening again.

MM has played this cruddy situation as well as he could. He should know better than to place bets outside of sportsbooks.

this should be re-posted over and over until people understand it

Looks like JY was clearly running this operation on his own. I'm not buying the whole "My boss disappeared" act. If JY's boss did disappear, give the guys who are owed money to his name and let them try to deal with him personally and stop asking MM for the $15K. As an agent, the $15k is no longer JY's responsibility to collect and the owed money is no longer JY's responsibility to pay out. My gut tells me the players who are waiting for money are owed a lot more then $15k combined.

CM took the credit $15K from JY and LOST it. But instead of paying JY he's running around playing Detective Columbo. Sheets and the other guys is a separate issue, THEY WON. Let them deal with JY their way.

Because if it turns out after the fact JY had no ability to pay Chris - Chris should have no responsibility to pay JY. It's really simple that you should never allow yourself to be freerolled.

Whatever the case is Chris and Jason should be embarrassed of themselves. I haven't seen them apologize once. Chris is outing Jason for illegal activities and Moneymaker looks like a broke stiff. This could be grounds to drop him from poker stars.

My sons did this weird thing today. They played a game where they throw pokemon cards to a wall and then look who threw the closest to the wall. The one who won the game won the pokemon card the loser threw with. The oldest one - 9 years - lost and broke like all kids in tears. He accused his younger brother of cheating and refused to give him his card.

On topic: this is pathetic. You are acting extremely immature. When you lose you lose, you pay what you played for. At least, that's what I taught my children.

But what if your older son who lost, while crying in tears, said "But Dad, so and so (younger brother) wouldn't have given me his card if I won?" and then the younger brother sheepishly confessed and admitted he would not have given up his card had he lost... DUCY

There is right and wrong in any decision made here. However, because it is standard practice to write off any debt in a situation where you were being free-rolled, then that seems like the best course of action, though not necessarily the right one. This is gambling, not absolute law.

The issues you, Kilowatt, and other CM supporters are missing (and ignoring) is:

1- Did CM have the ability to pay JY if he lost? Apparently not, as he was wagering on "credit". If you want to make an issue of JY's solvency, then the same standard should apply to CM. Its beginning to look like he was wagering with money he doesn't have/had. Just another in a long list of poker degens.

2-Does CM have a history of stiffing or free rolling bookies? Apparently Yes he does. He has admitted to stiffing 2 bookies in the past and only payed up after he binked the WSOP.

So you are speculating on issues concerning JY, but we actually have facts and some history concerning CM's behavior. Lets hold him to the same standard as JY.

What if is it was found that your youngest son's card was a worthless forgery and he was actually completely broke in terms of Pokemon cards?


PS: I used to love closest to the wall and topsies. Serious kid gaming.

Than he should not have played in the first place. Now that he did, he should accept the consequences and give the card he made his brother believe he played for. If he does not have it, he should mow our lawn, the neighbours, their neighbours etcetera, until he can afford to pay the card and give to his brother.

PS: I own them both. Love those games.

When he placed the bet he didn't have any reason to think he wouldn't be pay. It was only after the fact that he found out people weren't being paid (according to MM). If he placed bets after finding out this info then your point is valid. So only after you get screwed can you do something? What if all evidence indicated you were going to be screwed after the fact? It's that mentality that allows scams to take place. What about being proactive once you find out? Assuming if what MM says is true.

Horrible analogy, you've completely failed to understand a very simple situation; please don't make any more children, we don't want your genes polluting the rest of the species more than they already have.

LOL @ Pokebroke

If chris can prove 100% that jason wouldnt have been able to pay chris if had won, then he shouldnt have to pay. Pretty simple imo.

Not if the bookies just thought that the bettors were broke....if the bettors were objectively broke/insolvent and had no intention to pay if they won. Yes, I don't think the bookie should have to pay if this is the case. This is the definition of a free roll. Just like I don't think Moneymaker should have to pay if Jason was objectively insolvent/broke and had no intention/ability to pay if Moneymaker won.

Of course, it is virtually impossible to prove that a bettor was insolvent or never intended to pay had he lost. This is why the issue never comes up. If a bookie tried to claim this and not pay out, the bettor can always claim that he had means to pay (job, paycheck, loan, friend would pay for him, etc). So it won't do a bookie any good to take the position that he doesn't have to pay because the bettor would not have been able to pay had he lost. The bookie would literally need a video recording of the bettor talking about his plan to not pay the bookie if he loses.

But it's a lot easier to prove that a bookie is insolvent/broke and not intending to pay if he loses. I agree with my original post in that the reasoning goes both ways, no matter who is owed the money. But practically speaking, the bookie won't be able to use the argument because he has no way to prove that the bettor would not have paid him. The bettor can use the argument because he may (depending on the evidence) be able to prove that the bookie would not have paid him.

The key point is if chris won how would he have gotten paid. Sheets won over a year ago and still hasn't been paid. Surprised no one has latched onto this.

I think jason had all intentions to pay but got caught in a nowin situation after many who won wanted to be paid and losers stiffed.

What was the controversy at borgata jason was involved in.

Thanks Land of the Free? for your in depth contribution to the topic and your related insult to my children. Enjoy further wasting your DNA material in the sexy girls of poker topic.

To be fair, I did get paid a portion. Not as much as I would have liked, nor as regularly etc, but I did get something so far.

Stuff like this is inevitable. That is the cost of dealing with credit on both sides.

Both, IMHO, appear to be 'wrong'. So I have no clue as the 'right' answer.

Don't bet on sports! There is no winning.