Quote:
Originally Posted by dareyou2call
you want the name of the bookie? that is literally LOL to ask......nobody on this planet would ever answer that question.....but lets say for arguments sake that he did tell you.......then what? are you going to go find out his phone # and call him and say "hey... can you resolve a disagreement in my poker forum? were you really the bookie who refused to pay all these people the money they won? " i mean come on ....thats just the dumbest thing ive ever heard
and as for the $$......what do you want ? a bank statement? he should provide 2+2 with his banking records? or what if he like most other poker players just had a bunch of cash ......do you expect that he had time stamped photo evidence of his cash piles? oh but wait....maybe he just took those pics of someone elses money with the thought that this thread may come out 2 yrs later and hed need them! how would you like him to prove any of this in a non ridiculous manner....bottom line is......i know hes telling the truth...
and to go a step further......if hes not the bookie......it wouldnt even matter if hes broke....because hes not booking the bets......you have any idea what % of agents or runners our there really have enough money to cover all the bets being made should the real bookie just decide to screw everyone? PROBABLY NONE or else theyd be booking themselves.....so his finances arent relevant
Your excuses remind me a lot of Lock Poker.
"Oh, sure we have all of the player money! But we won't prove it because that would open it up to getting seized by the US government!"
When Lock is asked if they can get a trusted third-party auditing firm to prove the money exists, they respond, "No, because how do we know we can trust the auditing firm?"
So, in the face of all logic that leads to the conclusion that Lock is broke, we are supposed to believe that they have our money because..... well, they said so.
And that's what Jason is doing.
He wants us to believe the bookie exists, but he won't name the bookie either publicly (even though the guy scammed him) or privately (even though we could easily find countless trustworthy people to volunteer to verify this without ever revealing his identity.)
He wants us to believe he had the money, despite the fact that he has a long line of people coming forward claiming that he owes them money. Also, even Jason himself admits he has no cash now, but claims it was all invested in a restaurant. He will not explain why he invested his cash in a restaurant while owing people money, or alternately, why he was taking bets he couldn't cover if all of his cash was already invested.
All of the evidence in this thread points to two things:
1) Jason was booking Chris' bets with a fictitious third party.
2) Jason was broke and in debt at the time Chris bet with him.
Jason can say, "I have nothing to prove to any of you", or "You're demanding too much personal information", but if that's true, why bring this to 2+2?
Jason pleaded his case.
The vast majority here felt he was being extremely shady/dishonest, and asked for proof to refute the logical conclusions that he was broke and invented a phony bookie.
He is refusing to provide that proof.
There is nothing further to discuss, if that's the case.
The burden of proof is on Jason at this point, and if he can't/won't provide it, then he's stuck. Enough evidence has been presented regarding this being a likely scam/freeroll, and if Jason won't provide evidence to refute it, then we're done.
He can bring out a million sycophants like you to sing his praises, but we're still done until he provides evidence that he has been honest with us.