Who am I? My name is Todd Witteles, also known as Dan Druff.

Who made me judge and jury? Jason. He made all of us judge and jury when he took this public, in an effort to humiliate Chris into paying.

If Jason gives a name, then we investigate from that point if the guy was real, if he had any contact with Jason, and many other factors. There are ways of doing this that I won't bother disclosing, but suffice to say that it won't be too hard to ascertain if Jason just makes up a name and claims "That was the guy, but he's gone and you can't find him." Fortunately everything has a trail these days.

I agree that Jason's personal financial condition at the time of the bet is only relevant if the bookie didn't exist. But since it's almost certain that the bookie was fake, his financial condition at the time is a HUGE part of this story right now.

I think that is very fair because Chris ended up saving a lot more money because of your posts.

Obviously it is up to Chris but I think he should agree - $2,000 is a lot lower than $15,000.

Do the right thing Chris - Assani's posts were the KEY!!!!

sorry if I wasn't clear....

Your posts were very defensive of JY, and in particular I took note when you posted:


I'm asking you to provide an opinion on my situation with JY just as you have provided an opinion on the JY vs MM situation. I have asked you to do this because you didn't seem to realize that many people were judging JY's character(and thus taking a guess at who is to blame in the MM/JY situation) based upon his dealings with me. So when you said "posting slanderous comments without factual knowledge" it is probably necessary for you to understand the factual knowledge of how he dealt with me before you criticize how others have used that knowledge to extrapolate insight into the MM/JY situation.




"he acknowledged you guys made the bet.....and he has agreed to pay you......what is the question?"

The question is how do you think he has gone about things? Do you think its reasonable that he made a bet for $2k and then somehow forgot about it completely for an entire year(this never would happen to me, as I always sweat my bets and instantly know when I've lost one). If you do think that was reasonable, once he realized all this do you then think its reasonable for him to never once apologize and to view it as a "mutual misunderstanding"? Do you think his responses to me have been satisfactory both in terms of timeliness and demonstrating to me that he has every intention to pay me back ASAP? Do you think its ok that he still hasn't taken the initiative to set up a payment plan nor has taken the initiative to contact me once in the last ~3 months after our previous conversations? And finally, do you think its possible that on the issue of who to trust on a $25k bet, seeing how one person handled a $2k bet might provide some meaningful insight?

its comical that you are almost certain the bookie didnt exist ......how can you be almost certain? theres absolutely nothing in this thread that could lead anyone to that conclusion with almost certainty....

His name is Edward Cappucci (not really tho). Now what? How do you go about proving or disproving Cappucci was the bookie?

"Do your due diligence before you sit down" only applies to once you've already physically handed over your money, and it's gone. I suppose it can also apply to making bets where you will face some sort of violent consequence if you refuse to pay (such as the mob example).

However, when it's two dudes in the modern poker community, neither of whom is going to break the other's legs, and the money hasn't changed hands yet, it's different.

If one uncovers strong evidence that the other was scamming/freerolling, he should not be expected to pay.

Nobody is EVER morally obligated to continue paying into a scam. Once they realize they're being scammed -- even if it's after they've previously promised too pay -- the proper action is to cease all payments.

Enough strong circumstantial evidence exists in this thread that the bookie did not exist, and that Jason was broke at the time of the bet. Until Jason provides counter-evidence, Chris can reasonably conclude he was being scammed, and ethically refuse to pay.

I don't care what you think "standard degen practice" is. This sort of thing might happen fairly often in the poker world, but that doesn't mean people should keep paying into scam/freeroll bet situations just because others in the past have fallen for it.

Clever. Kudos.

Wait, I think Sheets owes me a few K. Chris, go ahead and ship to 'donniccolo' on Stars. K thanks.

HAHA.

HAHA. Curious if Chris could even rip off $15k today as he "intended." ?? What changed from 9/2012 to 10/2013 where all of a sudden he can pay these and presumably other debts?

You are missing that you were booking when you had no money. And you missed that investing all of your money is a bad idea. And you missed that investing in restaurants in general is a bad idea. And you missed that making investments when you are not qualified to do so is a bad idea. And you missed that gambling is a bad idea. And you missed that living in Narnia is a bad idea.

No you aren't missing anything. Degenerates act like degenerates.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I think Skype saves messages forever.

Agreed.

Awesome.

This is turning out to be a 6 star thread.

Kilowatt, your whole post is made with the assumption (which I agree with you about) that the bookie doesn't exist.

The real life bookies that I know are NOT on the aggressive side and I would NEVER out them publicly or to a "trusted" 3rd-party.

You not acknowledging that it's unreasonable to ask someone to publicly name their bookie is pretty surprising to me.

Agree with most of ur points itt. Just this one and the one RBK already threw out there. LOL at you offering to be the mediator/arbitrator when you've been pro-MM from the get go (and i'm slightly more in favor of MM for whatever that's worth)

ive been defensive of JY when it comes to the MM situation cause in that situation i know he is being honest....so if i know this it would make sense to defend him

as for the slanderous comments.....i was not talking to you ....i was talking to some random drooler who kept coming in here and making comments and statements that were ridiculous and lacked any merit yet he was passing them off as fact

as for your situation....i have in previous posts said the JY has not been perfect in his dealings ...i have made that clear.....in your case.....yea he was negligent....but he admitted it.....hes not saying he wont pay....he is saying that he will.....the MM issues occurred way before any of his other debts were incurred....so the fact that he owed money later on says nothing as to how the MM situation should be handled.....again as to you...he obv should have been more attentive......but from what ive heard....it wasnt like you were contacting him constantly over an extended period of time.....you admitted to being somewhat lax in your collection methods as well...granted this doesnt excuse jason but it does help to understand the amount of time that has passed....so yes.....jason could have handled your situation better.....no it has no relevance to chris......and yes i believe when he says that he will eventually pay his debt to you in full

I'm not giving any opinion on this matter, but I do think I can provide a hypothetical that will clarify what was the spirit of Bobo Fett's question....

Lets suppose you make a bet with a guy. You lose. Before you pay you discover hidden-camera video tape of him discussing with his partner how hes freerolling you and has no money to pay you. In this video tape, him and his partner go on to say that they are freerolling everyone they are betting with. Its in HD and very clear to make out their faces and all of the words they say.

Now, morally speaking, do you feel that you should pay up? That is what Bobo Fett wanted to know. Obviously whether or not there is sufficient evidence to say whether JY was freerolling is a whole different issue(and the point of this thread).

There are a lot of ways to determine this, by asking further questions (privately) of Jason and checking them against various records that exist.

I don't think we'll get that far, because there was no bookie. Jason has avoided these questions for 55 pages, and he will continue to avoid them.

The fact that he won't even explain WHY he's avoiding them (such as, "I can't reveal his identity because I'm scared of him") means that he knows he's lying, and wants to push that subject away from the bookie's identity.

That's what liars do. They indignantly make all sorts of noise that means nothing (in this case, Jason repeatedly bragging about how many "good" transactions he's done in the past), yet won't answer any direct questions about the most important issues.

Already answered this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=824

and by the way...all of your thoughts and opinions cannot even be taken remotely serious for one reason..... it is so clear that you are just here to back MM under any and all circumstances......while i have sat here and said that JY may have made mistakes in certain aspects you have only torched JY and never once MM...if you think JY is a liar and a scammer how have you never once commented on MM???? it has been PROVEN that MM had no money when he was betting with JY through the text messages....so it is completely clear that he was freerolling jason.....so how in the world can anyone listen to a word you have to say if you are trashing the guy who could potentially be honest while ignoring the proven freeroller?

it's not easy to relate to the lengths you poor americans have to go to just to get a bet on a sports game or play some poker on the internet. All I can say is if I had to use a friend/contact as an intermediary in order to place bets, and he told me the bookie had split with my money, I'd expect him to tell me who the bookie was!

you clearly did not read any of assani's posts. jason handled it horribly; in a way a broke degen would handle it. and it is completely relevant to the moneymaker situation.

only on the computer you used to have those skype messages(at least thats what mine does- there may be a setting to change that)

If I was here to back Moneymaker for any reason, I wouldn't have said way back on page 35 that Moneymaker was also freerolling. This was BEFORE Jason posted those damning text messages proving it.

Go back to page 35, have a look for yourself, and then step back for a moment and realize that I have no dog in this fight.

I know OP was an accountant but were those literary skillz for realz?

Didn't the Assani bet and the CM bets both occur around the same time in April? Am I missing something?

Did it ever for one second cross your mind that I'm ignoring you? YOU in particular?? Who the F*CK ARE YOU? i dont owe you anything, i dont know you, and you dont know me, and your ludicrous accusations about me, personally, financially, my business, my dealings with chris your just guessing at everything. Why im choosing to respond to you now is because your overly pompous, tooling out on me has gone way to far. Your lop-sided one sided one track mind makes you look ridiculous to the people that actually do have a clue what is going on.

lol.

Somehow outing a known scammer (jason's "bookie") is a ridiculous idea. Why is it ok to out scammers in the poker world, but not bookies? You guys act like bookies are somehow immune to bullets.

If you want to do business with sketchy people who you think might kill you after you out them as a scammer, then you have no sympathy from us when you get burned and have to pay out their debts.

He is one of 7 people you don't owe.

Wow this is such an awful post. Just so wrong on so many levels. Ugh.

If you're still using the same computer you can retrieve these messages...including the mysterious 18k guy.

Okay, fine.

Keep ignoring me, and answer the 50 other people who asked the exact same questions I did.

You made this situation public, the onus is on you to prove your side of the story. Ignoring the person asking the tough questions that would help you prove your side is not a good look.