The other players that are owed money should post in this thread.

If they can't lock down the timeline, then imo we have to assume Jason Young was insolvent and freerolling at the time of Moneymaker's bets. You can't be insolvent six months later and be like, "yeah but six months earlier I could've paid even though I can't prove it."

The "there was no bookie" angle is weird to me. Surely there were other players that Jason acted as an agent for. I assume some of them would've done some research into the bookmaker? In some cases there would be a website that they as customers would bet through? Seems like a hard thing for JY to fake unless everything was done over the phone. And if you created a bookie out of thin air, why would you air this dirty laundry now.

One of the best things JY has going for him (since a lot of this is hard to piece together as an outsider to the agent business) is that he was the one who made the dispute public.

I just disagree...and apparently I am in the minority....so I am going to bow out.

I think if you place a bet with a bookie..shady or otherwise...and lose...you pay the guy who booked your bet....the same guy who you are going to be looking up if you win....reguardless if he is an "agent"....or the actual book purporting to be working with a ghost book...you pay and collect from your contact...and what happens after that is not your concern.

I don't follow this whole reverse freeroll scenario.

This whole thing is completely avoidable...just walk into any legal book in the world and put your money up...ask yourself why this didn't happen.

CM was traveling....if it's something related to poker ...then there is probably a legal book nearby.....so were the lines better through JY?....did CM perhaps not have the money up front to cover his own bets?

Lest we forget, by his own admission previous to his fame...he was a degen sports bettor who stiffed a few bookies....now we are supporting him in doing it again.

Anyway....y'all hash it out. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion.

I have made upwards of 100 different sports/prop bets in my time with many different people. This is a relatively small, tiny number in the sports world. I understand all the terms people are saying here, and familiar with some of the situations.

That being said, I'm sure my experience doesn't come close to what I believe scary tigers, bansooners, or liveactionpro's experience is. So I am refraining from posting my strong opinion on what I think should be done. I'd advise others who don't know this world WELL, to do the same.

Also, so far kilowatt had the best post to simplify this situation to me.

How do you not understand the freeroll scenario? It's not hard to get dude!

Kilowatt is spot on by the way. It really does seem strange Jason is not outing the booker who allegedly scammed him. That simple proof would make Chris liable to pay, right? Isn't this what most of you think? Including Kilowatt who seems to be correct most of the time.

Because he hasn't, after multiple request, outed the booker makes it super likely he was acting as a bookie himself. If he is taking (like he was) bets from a bunch of people it's very unlikely he had the money to pay everyone if all of them happened to win, thus making it a freeroll situation and voiding bets between Chris and Jason. I can see how this kind of business is lucrative as in the long run bookers do tend to win if they can give correct lines, but in cases like this where Jason doesn't have enough money to cover losses it's a simple case of freerolling and losing players should not be expected to pay.

If this is the case Jason was kind of reverse-freerolling himself in here though, as people who won money from him are eligible to collect. Meaning bets between Jason and sheets should not be voided (obviously).

Such a hassle to bet through agents, quite honestly I dont undertand why people do it. Degens gonna degen I guess.

I've been an agent and a "boss" and in my experience, guys with half a brain dont become agents, and if they do they end up going out on their own rather quickly. So if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that there was never a boss and Jason just made him up to a) scare people into paying b) cover his ass in a situation like this.

You need funds to cover winnings in order to vouch or be an agent. To book $14.5k worth of action, you need at least $14.5k on hand to pay them if they win. You can't have $4.5k on hand and have someone owe you $10k. And you certainly can't have $4.5k on hand and owe someone $18k. There is no fractional reserve system in booking sports bets, you'd be freerolling the bettors by doing so.

The promise is that you'll pay if they win. Not pay if they win and you can collect some money from someone somehow.

Not clear to me why this is 100%.

Why should any of the freeroll scam victims be made (partially) whole by other victims? It is only by chance that there were other bettors at all, and those who were stuck. Each victim was losing half their bets in, uh, Sklansky (Lindgren?) Bucks each bet. Winning $0 is running good. Mostly I don't feel anyone should have to pay if they couldn't expect to get paid.

His statement isn't unprecedented. In the Madoff case, people that got out early and got paid, had their money confiscated to make partially whole people that were scammed later. The analogy here would be Josh Kay would have his "winnings" taken away to help repay sheets and would only be returned a portion of his "investment". For Chris that means whatever if any money he ever gave to Jason, he'd get only a partial repayment with the rest going to the fund that pays sheets and others. If Chris never gave any money to Jason, which it sounds like, he wouldn't owe anything as none of the "bets" were legitimate.

Now, I don't think that's fair in that I view everyone that bet with Madoff or Jason shared equal personal responsibility with regard to where they were putting their money, and in Jason's case, his book may have been solvent for earlier bets but fallen apart later. Madoff was I believe a scam from the outset.

Lol, this is a completely different situation.

Let's say a random tries to make a deposit on Lock Poker, his account is credited, and he loses it all. However, the actual funds never left his bank, and Lock is now requesting he pays. During this time, the random discovers 2+2, and reads the Lock poker thread which makes him aware he probably would not have gotten paid should he have won.

Does he still have an obligation to pay Lock?

Yes, people are asking him to out his bookie, which could solve some of this mess if he did. I actually agree that outing in this spot is likely bad for Jason, however he has def dogged that question, and then accused CM of dogging some of his questions. They both look a bit redic imo.

Simple answer from Jason would be, guys I'm not outing my bookie publicly but I'll PM his name over to CM and Sheets/ some other reputable person/whom ever and they can come confirm after they do some work on the name.

He hasn't gotten anywhere near acknowledging the guy even existed....

Tho this def should go to arbitration either way. Tho with what has been posted itt I still think CM was getting freerolled more often than he is stiffing, but it's gotten closer to 50/50, obv imo.

If there is some chance that he could have gotten paid then yes he should pay lock. If there is no chance he could have won then no he should not settle up as he was clearly getting freerolled. Though an agreement with a business is different than among friends so it's not as cut and dry as my response obv.

Anyone realize that they have both agreed to private arbitration in this thread? I think the next step would be to find an arbitrator both agree on. Empiremaker2 is like the authority on HS sports betting. Maybe he'd be game?

Seems like, for Chris to come out looking like he did the right thing, he should offer to pay his money to the players who are owed. For Jason to come out looking like he did the right thing, he should offer Chris to pay the money to players who are owed.

I have stated my case and facts and will handle situation with Jason through arbitrator privately. Empiremaker, hevadkhan, Jason mercier. Someone who knows sports works for me. I will contact Jason and let you guys debate who was right. I never wanted this to go public obv but I feel strongly enough in my position that I am not paying off the debt to avoid being blackmailed by it being posted on here. I know this thread would be bad for my image however I don't think it is right to pay to keep it quiet.

Not true at all in all books. 90% of the one I've witnessed are 20% to the agent for finding and 'handling' the player with no risk.. In very few cases have I seen the agent have to cover it all, otherwise he'd just be the book and take all the risk

I hate it when people use analogies that don't pertain to the given situation. When you deposit on a gambling site as a US citizen, then you are taking a risk. There is always a chance you won't get paid if you withdraw.

Now, when you make a sports bet with someone there is also a chance you won't get paid. But, since this person is not an offshore poker site it is resolvable. Furthermore, Chris is electing to not pay his debt because he gained knowledge that JY was not paying losses on wagers with other bettors. Leading Chris to believe he was getting freerolled. Now, it's not a fact that Chris was getting freerolled and JY should provide proof that he wasn't in order for Chris to pay up.

If I was Chris in this situation, I would pay what I owe to the people that JY owes money to. I would require proof that he does indeed owe these people money. To avoid JY getting someone to claim he owes them money and then get the money from Chris.

Now, if there is proof that JY was 100% going to freeroll Chris then I would consider the bets to be void. But, since there is a chance JY was intending to make good on all of his debts. Chris should still have to pay up. It does appear that Chris is looking for a reason to not have to pay his debt. All the people that won money off JY have been freerolled and Chris really should pay these people because he did lose his bets.

Just my 2cents.

Apples and oranges.

I think you guys need to ask yourselves one question and one question only.

What would be your response if everything remaining equal, Chris Moneymaker had never mad the bet, and it was Sheets making a thread about how Jason Young isn't paying.

I don't see how his personal business with other people has anything to do with your debt. You obv don't have to continue to do business, but you do have to pay. That's pretty simple.

I'm one of the people owed. I'm not entirely certain on timelines but will talk to arbitrators if needed. Just posting in the event of this going in JY's favor.

First of all I'd like to state for the record that I've never placed an illegal wager with an agent or bookie so Ban Sooner should just skip this post.

Secondly, I've read every post up to here & have read many state they have also but nobody has commented on this statement that CM posted 10 or so pages back:

He says he paid a guy 18K on Pokerstars at JY's request which is more than CM acknowledges he owed in the first place. If this is/can be confirmed, why is JY blowing him up for the whole 25K(his figure)? This should be easy to confim that CM did this or not. JY has responded numerous times since this post by CM & hasn't said one word about that.

WTF? Am I missing something here?

After re-reading I see he sent that guy 2K not 18K.

All JY seems to want to do is drag CM's name through the mud by insinuating CM was planning on paying him by scamming some backers in a deal that fell through. He's said this several times instead of answering some pretty simple questions about his bookie.

I would never expect him to reveal it on a public forum but there are many people I'm sure he trusts that can confirm he's revealed it in private & this bookie existed.

I guess we'll wait for the arbitrators verdict who will have all the facts because we certainly don't in this thread.

Good luck.

This isn't true. Again, people giving opinions when they don't know what here talking about. If Jason was an agent, as he says he was, then he doesn't need any kind of bankroll at all. Agents are just middlemen