Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Young
Once again- I was never booking these bets- I had enough cred if I wanted action I could have bet whatever I wanted with no less than a dozen guys. I had previously vouched for someone that didn't make good on things...I'm a man and my word means something so instead of telling them they are out of luck I said I'd cover it
See, the bolded part above is why Jason is really coming off as super damn shady, and why I hate this "bookie" story a lot more than the freerolling itself.
The invention of this "bookie" allows Jason to place a layer between himself and the unpaid bets.
Without the bookie, Jason is just a freerolling scammer/a-hole who took way more action than he could cover.
With the bookie, Jason is a fine, stand-up gentleman, who is going above and beyond by covering the debts of a third-party he vouched for.
See the difference?
Same exact bets, but totally different image he can present with the addition of the "bookie" people were betting with.
This was no accident. It's exactly why the bookie was created -- so he could have an evil (yet unnamed) third party to blame when he couldn't cover the action he was booking. And then he can make himself look like a saint by paying ANYTHING that the "bookie" skipped out on, as opposed to looking like a shady POS for no-paying/slow-paying his own debts.
To me, this is MUCH more shady than your standard degen freeroll (which is also bad), because this added a level of premeditation to the whole thing.
The fact that he will answer ZERO questions about the bookie is a very bad sign, and highly indicative that the whole thing was a ruse to shield himself from responsibility.