Where has that been proven?

Whose to say he (or this bookie) couldn't meet the payout in the event MM won at the time?

IMO MM has caught himself in a bind where, given he has made an illegal bet and not one through a proper booking agency, he is just trying to find an argumentative excuse or reason to not pay it which, as he probably well knows, is almost impossible to prove with respect to the debts JY arguably owes.

when was this proven?

Edit: Slow Pony

What? Sheets in this thread has said that he hasn't been paid for winning. Is that not proof enough?

Sheets?



Maybe I am missing something here....

This took place in October. There is ZERO proof Jason/bookie was insolvent back in April.

Oh ok. I get it now.

Haha man, imo you need to chill with the bolded sentiment, every few posts I see of yours have this theme. It's very narrow-minded.

Yep unless this anonymous tip-off to MM at some airport in Europe about the 18k owing to them from JY comes forward

Nice for Jason to respond to legitimate questions - NOT

At least Chris and Sheets have posted periodically to update/answer pointed questions, etc... - JYoung has done nothing to bolster his side of the argument and has ignored repeated questions for days.

I'm leaning towards Chris at this point. - JYoung couldn't wait to OUT Chris but has contributed nothing towards follow-up points/questions, etc...

Yeah seems like most of the community is split 50/50 but sees both positions as tenable and this would easily be resolved if either side would step up and provide evidence and answer the legitimate questions that have been posed. I'm shocked at how poorly both sides are handling it.

Jason has definitely left more unanswered though. I mean all he has to do is choose one of about ten ways to prove he was solvent at the time Moneymaker lost the bet and he'll have the whole community behind him and I believe Chris would then pay. The fact that he has to know this and has taken no action probably means he was insolvent and freerolling and is here hoping MM will pay to protect his reputation thus letting JY use the money to be a little less in debt to the rest of the world.

Well he is the one chasing the money and MM, from all reports, is trying to dodge payment, so is it any surprise?

Well said

The issue is that both are engaging in non-binding agreements with little enforcement options. And the court of public opinion is divided.

Arbitration would seem to be the noble route. Good luck choosing unbiased arbiters though!

Public poll added. We will see how you voted.

JY admits "Like I previously stated all of my liquidity is in my business so at this point in time, even if i wanted to just pay out of my pocket like I always have in the past I can't."

He even states he can't pay sheets because MM is "stiffing" him... that's absurd even if MM was at fault. IF one guy stiffs you, you should still be able to pay out winnngs.

And has it been identified if there was an actual bookie? why does MM owe money to JY anyways. He was an agent, not the money man...

Perfect Post. Sums up my thoughts exactly.

moneymaker>>>jamie gold>>carlos mortenson>>greg raymer>>>jerry YANG>robert varkonyi>>>>>>>>>>>joe hachem

I didn't read most of this but I have to ask the question. How does Chris moneymaker still have money ? One tourney win in 10 years?

LOL at JYoung starting a huge thread about MM stiffing him but not answering anyone's questions or providing 1 shred of proof that a bookie existed(even through pm's to Sheets, Kilowatt, etc...)

Hard to take JYoung's side at all on this since imo he broke cardinal rule #1 on a forum website of this kind:

DO NOT START A THREAD TRYING TO "OUT" SOMEBODY AND THEN NEVER POST ANY PROOF/FOLLOW-UP OR ANSWER ANYONE'S QUESTIONS

Not the best way to sway the argument in his favor, lol.

Million dollar plus win and Stars sponsorship since, anyone with stars sponsorship should be able to hang around even as a losing player

It's not that black and white. Besides, just because JY never rolled him BEFORE means Chris has nothing he can do about this situation? that's complete BS. How do you not understand the concept of freerolling in this instance? If I bet with a dude who is broke (not saying JY is/was broke, although it looks like he has had liquidity problems for a while) it's essentially same as burning money. You bet and if you lose fine you owe money. But if you win you dont get anything. How is it so hard to understand what is wrong with this, and how Chris does have a case to not pay.

To sheets, of course Chris would have tried to claim his winnings, but I dont see how that is relevant in this? If JY is broke chris can try to claim his winnings but it's just not going to happen. So I dont see how it matters had Chris _tried_ to claim his winnings had he won, since it's not like he would have gotten paid anyways.

Hi Jason.

It really isn't that simple. Sheets was owed money for such a long time from betting as well that Chris has the right to delay paying his debt until this case has been solved thouroughly.

Jason Young claimed he fronted the money. This is puzzling because this is apparently after Jason has been scammed various times (as he asserts) in the past, and is more in line with an agent who has a very good relationship with the bettor (and not someone who has been scammed/just met Chris Moneymaker).

After rereading his post, 2 things puzzle me:

1) He claims all debts would be settled if Chris pays him and that some people have been paid in full. So far, no one that is reputable has posted they been paid in full in any significant bet (not like $500 but anything above 5k).
2) He claims 100s of people will defend him. So far, the one person who posted (sheets), has been paid back 500 bucks out of 8k over 1+ year.

So then why doesn't MM pay Sheets which ensures the money goes to someone that is owed money by JY rather than funneled say through JY's restaurant if paid directly to JY? Seems like the most logical solution.

Chris has no obligation to see that people Jason owes money are paid.

Yes, yes because it's equitable to see him walk away without owing anything and people owed by Jason are left in the lurch

IMO MM should agree to a mutually acceptable private arbitrator being appointed and one of the decisions he (and JY) should open his mind to accepting is that the arbitrator will then act (as if to be a receiver for a company in liquidation) for the interests of the creditors of JY and not JY himself and recover part or all of the said money owed by MM and pay the creditors and not JY.