How did you manage to leave out all facts regarding others not being paid by Jason?

I have to agree with PSU. After reading monikrazy post the most surprising comment was he is not friends with Jason Young. His take on the events is extremely one sided.

If I'm management at Stars, I'm giving a good hard look at this thread.

Conduct from both parties is completely ridiculous and I would have to strongly consider whether or not I'd want someone involved in these offenses (and there are plenty above and beyond the non-payment of a sports bet) representing my company.

Doesn't all of this come down to the sense Chris has that he was/is being freerolled? Based on what I'm reading, I get a feeling that since all of 2+2 has now become aware of/involved in the matter, the only real and favorable outcome seems like if Chris pays the third party whose name remains in question (whom Jason has been saying all along that he floated the bet with) rather than Jason. Jason didn't actually cover Chris' bets and/or credit; he's claiming the money is still owed iirc.

So help me to understand here: isn't Jason the middle man in this whole equation anyways? I'm not questioning anyone's reputation here, I'm simply thinking of a way that the whole thing could be settled so that Chris doesn't continue to feel like he's getting freerolled and Jason's debt to the anonymous third party is satisfied.

If I've got any of this wrong, jump in.

I've read posts saying that there was a third party, then denials that there was a third party, then additional people have come in and vouched for Jason or this or that. What I haven't heard is anyone saying, "Yes, I took Chris' action via Jason and I am owed a lot of money, Chris should just pay me."

The fact of the matter is, the gambling/poker environment has this kind of stuff happening all over the place. It's become so common in fact that most times people rarely give it a 2nd thought.

Chris and everything about his 2003 win(including his name)brought poker to the masses and made PokerStars a household name.

It will take a lot more than this imo for Pokerstars to drop Chris altogether. However, based on his current financial situation that we can deduce from this thread- it doesn't look like Chris has the greatest deal anymore from PokerStars anyways.

paying jason's debt isn't going to make chris feel like he isn't getting freerolled

I'm more interesting in Chris Moneymaker's actions because he is a much more important figure in the poker community (due to his title of World Champion).

I don't have any problem with someone contesting a payment that is fraudulent. For example, someone who has an unauthorized transaction on his credit card should report it, have the company withhold payment while it conducts an investigation, and have his card replaced. If the company finds its client made an error or an effort to defraud the original beneficiary, it will honor the payment.

The evidence in the thread shows Chris purported that he wanted to pay Jason back and was going to when he had the means available. He stated this directly to Jason, and in documents that Jason has posted publically. The manner in which he is now saying he will not pay Jason appears extremely self-serving. The evidence does not suggest he had good reason to doubt Jason's ability to honor his winnings, even if Jason were honoring the winnings indirectly (transacting business for a bookie).

Is it possible that Jason acted in an unethical manner in regards to this particular transaction? It is possible, but the the evidence doesn't seem to prove anything beyond that. So while it remains possible, the burden of proof rests on Chris to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, and he hasn't done that in the thread so far.

Furthermore, his actions also strongly suggest that Chris was acting in bad faith, meaning the evidence needs to be strong (beyond a reasonable doubt) and evaluated by an impartial party to justify witholding payment that he took responsibility for in his conversations with Jason.

I realized after composing my post that no actual money ever changed hands between Jason and Chris -- there was a 5K win that rolled over into a loss of 20K. However, Jason merely acted as the middleman in the transaction & therefore Jason has tried repeatedly to collect.

It seems that if Chris felt he was being freerolled, he would never have agreed to pay the debt in the first place; however, now that Jason's other debts have come to light, it feels like a freerolling attempt making Chris disinclined to pay.

I think the impunity to Chris' character levied in this thread (people saying he's busto etc.) only creates a larger problem in settling the debt if, in fact, we can agree one exists.

If Chris pays the debt, people will think they can freeroll him and get away with it. If he doesn't pay the debt, people will call him busto/degen etc. He can't win & neither can Jason.

Ok, I'll go back to lurking now.

Has it been shown yet that Chris would have been paid if he had won?

Were there funds available to pay if Chris had won?

This is all that matters with regards to whether Chris has to pay.

Why is this so hard to understand?

And the lying degenerate is back up against the ropes, flailing wildly.

Jason and/or his bookie said that the funds were available.

How are Jason and/or his bookie supposed to prove their financial status from 2 years ago? At the bequest of someone who kept saying he would pay them back until the matter was made public.

This is one reason why the legal system has statutes of limitations for many types of cases. The passage of time from the event in question can creates undue burdens.



Let's take this one step further. Let say's Jason and/or his bookie have irrevocable proof they could honor any winnings of XXX dollars to Chris. Is it reasonable for them to make their business records public and take on the risks such exposure might entail.

What if they are willing to expose these records, and after they did Chris still refused to honor his payment? That would seem to be the definition of the phrase 'throwing good money after bad'.

After all, Jason and/or his bookie have Chris on record promising to pay them. How much more should they be obligated to prove?



Edit: Maybe one solution would be for Chris to offer additional compensation, held in escrow, should Jason offer financial proof of his and/or his bookie to pay at the time. That could partially mitigate the risks involved.

If im not mistaken Moneymaker had 50 percent of himself for his 2003 wsop main event win right? Even after that, he would have won 1.25 million dollars after taxes he would have made 750k roughly? Then he had the stars sponsonship which is worth more money.


From looking at those text messages, that is pretty shocking. So Chris Moneymaker is close to broke now? How in the world does a former WSOP main event winner have this happen to him. Why in the world would he need a backer? Shouldn't he have enough money made from back then?


The fact that he needs someone to send him a dime aka 1k... i would assume moneymaker would have a decent amount of money. Did he just degen most of his money away? Or was it from bad investing or poker doing bad for him? I cant believe a guy like chris moneymaker would have financial problems where even for the amt he supposedly owes, he would have a problem.

.

So sad but so true.

I'd call it a solid 10 years for everyone. Flashfoward to the present, he is openly admitting to searching for what he calls stakes (clearly loans with promises of poker winnings to pay back the loans) in order to pay off his sports betting debts. These situations don't usually get better, they get worse.

Awesome

Well that's OK then if they said that.

Chris should just pay obv!

750k 10 years ago works out a little over $200 per day..

I feel like this is an attempt to save face and act like "hey! I'm still rich, but busto in my gambling account"

It could also be saying I separated my gambling money from the money I saved for my family, which sounds very reasonable.

If they had the money to pay to charity they'd have the money to pay each other and it wouldn't be a freeroll in the first place...

How is it possible for a bookie that is taking five figure bets (minimum, perhaps even larger) with multiple people (10's? 100's?), works through agents, and is affiliated with an on-line site (so not just any new random) to disappear - stiffing many, many people out of major money - without causing at least a minor scandal in Vegas? And his name becoming very well known in sports betting circles almost overnight? It's not really a big town, after all.

"Bookie X skipped town, did you hear? He welched on at least 300k USD in bets, I was told! I heard such-and-such is out 40k! Perhaps some HS poker players were involved, too! Blah, blah, blah, gossip, gossip, gossip..."

I would imagine everyone knows everyone in sports betting in Vegas, especially a bookie taking relatively large bets. This isn't a regular occurrence, after all, and so many people were impacted. How is it possible for this major scandal to happen and nobody seems to know about it?

Also, I really hope no more correspondences are posted in this thread without redacting sensitive issues that do not relate directly to the issue at hand (free rolling on the initial bets). People can have major issues with wives, divorce lawyers, IRS, employers, etc. because of somebody's petty recklessness and vindictiveness. I know we're talking about a lot of money here, but please black out personal info that is not related to the core issue, out of common decency.

--PP

lol. stars will never fire chris. he is a huge reason stars is what it is today. MONEYMAKERBOOOOOM!!! carry on.

Says the dude with 40 posts who registered last month

(jason sockpuppet)

What does it change? It's in the ****ing OP by Chris...FFS

At 1.31