This could be solved so easily in JY's favour if he just chooses a trusted 2+2er to show his relevant bank statements at the time to (which is necessary for CM to owe the debt if JY refuses to name the bookie), and that person in turn verifies it to the forum

If JY isn't willing to do that, he can't expect CM to pay him the money. CM doesn't have an obligation to Assani if JY doesn't make him but it would be nice of him to pay Assani anyway and then give the rest to charity if JY doesn't pay Assani given he likely would have paid JY if Assani didn't come forward.

Obviously if JY proves he was solvent or the bookie was real at the time the money was lost, then CM owes the money to JY. It is baffling that JY hasn't taken steps to prove he was either solvent or the bookie was real if either was the case, which as Kilowatt has said seems to make it likely that JY is lying.

For what it's worth I showed the thread to my GF and she disagrees with me and says CM owes the money to Jason no matter what because it's his responsibility to find out sufficient information about the guy he is placing bets with or take on the risk if he's unwilling to go to that effort (she's a casual poker player who doesn't sports bet). Just figured i'd add that.

Jason is not bookie

Incorrect

Correct Wat?
this is what you really came here to say imho
...maybe, my read is 50/50 at best
Jason offered this... pointed toward business he was doing in HS threads ATT in question.
Fyp

Thx for adding. While I tend to agree with your "girlfriend", this is how I originally saw your post.

Go **** yourself 46&2

I was trying to contribute my opinion (and a random outside person's opinion) to the thread as a reputable 2+2er who has paid out six figures on 2p2 etc. to investors. Instead, you randomly throw insults at me to support 'your guy'

That's all.

Also back on topic, Jason has not proven this even though he easily could if it was true and you can't comprehensively state that he wasn't the bookie unless you're willing to provide evidence that he wasn't. I don't know whether he was the bookie or not, but unless he proves that the bookie existed in the first place, we can assume the bookie never existed because why would he not provide evidence if he's telling the truth...

You're a clown and you are not helping JY's cause at all.

Funny, I just came to the realization every time someone asks for proof there is a bookie, a pro-Jason Young supporter will usually retort something along the lines of:

"Well, you can't prove there isn't a bookie. Jason says there is one. Therefore there is a bookie, since you can't disprove it."

Ok, flying spaghetti monster argument.

Fyp

Really good post potatokmish I agree with everything you say here, especially that MM should have researched someone he chose to bet 5 figures with.

He should be snap paying up and never betting with Jason again, it didn't need to come to this and by making this thread MM may have cost himself more than the 20k in damage to his reputation and lost future sponsorship deals.

I'm sure MM is a nice guy but in this case he's got it wrong and needs to pay up on his debt.

jason young's cronies who are trying to come in and support him are making him look worse than he has done himself(which is hard to do). Why is this thread even still going, it's obvious Jason isn't going to show evidence of having a bookie or having money at the time the bets were placed. His attitude towards the whole thing is even worse. It is funny that 2 scumbags freerolled each other and now are both looking for ppl to side with them, it's really sad to be honest.

This thread is getting more and more immature by the minute because of the effort of JY and some of his believers/shills. I've seen very good, relevant posts, and all they can come up with is ad hominem arguments, insulting the people who are helping to try resolve your immature dispute. And that's just hurting your case, if you have to flee to insults to prove your point, most of the time you don't have a point at all.

Just wanted to chime in and say, that I know nothing about the people involved or this issue whatsoever, therefore I have nothing useful to add to this thread and will not be posting in it again. Half of the posters itt should do the same.

Turtle out!

Firstly, thanks for posting. Very interesting perspective. And I admire your approach to gambling. You seem like an honorable man.

The key question in my mind regarding a free roll is the following: can the bookie or bettor pay immediately if he loses the bet? Or put another way, does he have adequate funds equal to or greater than the amount being wagered, with the clear intention of paying should he lose?

In your case, the bookie owed a huge sum to a third party. But does that mean he can't cover your specific bet if you lose? Your bets were smaller in scale. And as far as you know, he could have a payment plan worked out on the big bet, and adequate cash on hand for smaller bets, which allows him to continue operation.

Banks do this all the time. They can be incredibly exposed when a major bet goes wrong, let's say the dollar/Yen exchange rate changes in a way that means they cannot cover their losses, if forced to pay. They don't stop all operations. That would only make things much, much worse. They take steps to service their obligation, while keeping operations running, hoping to eventually pay back all obligations in full.

In the CM example, he had bet the large sum, while JY apparently couldn't pay a much smaller sum to a third party (or rather, third parties). So if true (and JY's inability to provide any proof is rather damning, although not conclusive), JY did not have adequate funds to cover CM's bets, should CM have won.

Also, CM had no idea of JY's inability to cover other debts at the time, while you did have knowledge of this from your bookie. So it really was on you to either walk away, ask for specific assurances (escrow?), or just hope for the best if you win, and pay when you lose. You apparently chose option 3. And again, hats off to you for doing the honourable thing and following through.

So great perspective, but I see it as comparing apples to oranges.

--PP

lol

The whereabouts or the naming of this bookie as I've always said is irrelevant - what is relevant is the intention at the time of MM making the losing bet in question that he had confidence enough in JY to let the win ride because he must have knew that JY or the bookie he was representing was good for payment if MM happened to win the second bet.

Just skimmed the thread so apologies if this has already been answered but if Jason is not the bookie then why does Moneymaker owe him?

Still owes him a piece of action having taken the bet on the bookie's behalf? (agent's commission)

Yeah I can understand that but everything I've read is suggesting he owes him the full amount.

Also MM owes the bookie and then the bookie owes Jason his cut, no?

The other thing that I wanted to say is how many "strikes" can a person have with regard to what they ought to have known before a debt is forgiven?

This is putting aside the text messages and any action taken by JY after those text messages - but there is acknowledgement on both sides that there has been a history between them (and from MM's own accounts JY has a stand up record before the bets in question were made IIRC), so that is the first strike. Then, the second strike is MM winning 5k and letting the bet ride. So again that is the second strike - he's had ample opportunity to do some background checking on JY and his bookie but has sufficient trust in them to let it ride and then loses on the subsequent bet which is strike three but somehow later calls foul?

How many chances should he have before he is allowed to be released free from any obligations?

This is such a long thread I don't feel like going back and finding the quote from Sheets. Here are my thoughts for what it's worth. Moneymaker made a sports bet and lost. In my opinion he should pay regardless of JY circumstances with regards to other players. If he won he would want to be paid.

Now for the 2nd thing. Everyone is debating whether or not JY was an agent or the actual bookie. It really shouldn't matter but for those that think it does matter I have a question for you. If Jason was acting as an agent and paying the players from cash received from the actual bookie then why did he pay Sheets with LOL Lock poker transfer the first time? Did Jason pocket the cash and get a free withdrawal compliments of sheets? If this has been asked I'm sorry. Long thread and maybe missed it.

It may be that JY fronted MM's money to the bookie.

Usually, but if the bookie has skipped town with the bookie having given MM credit and JY not needing to front the money there is what I call to be a transaction fee for JY to compensate him for handling the business. (Not that I think this is realistically the case)

Yeah, in which case it's pretty straightforward isn't it? JY just needs to provide proof he fronted the money.

In which case MM owes said transaction fee not the full amount. I've not seen any discussion of this.

As I said, the chances of this actually being the case is so slim. It's nearly not worth any consideration at all.

This proof involves outing the bookie, doesn't it? Can't see it happening.

But as I've also said, it's irrelevant given their past history together and the fact that MM let his first win ride which shows confidence in JY or the bookie in being able to pay out if MM backed it up with another win.

He doesn't have to prove it to NVG, just to MM or a trusted 3rd party. Also he can hide the actual party, he just needs to show outgoing transactions for $14k or whatever the amount was.

Don't see how it's irrelevant with all due respect. If he didn't front the money, then why does MM owe him the full amount? His debt is then to the bookie not JY.

With MM's responses both in this thread and in the numerous texts that JY posted, I am confident that MM knows he owes JY the full amount.

Ok fair enough.

Here's another stupid question: if JY wasn't the bookie, why does he owe Sheets?