It's more just Chris resolving the matter....Jason still has some ppl to owe after Chris pays the money to them. Its hard to say for a fact whether Chris would have gotten paid had he won 25k from Jason(very unlikely as Jason can't pay these other ppl) so he def got freerolled to some point, prolly should get a discount in what he owes.

Mm was making bets over $5k each. He easily could have won or lost in excess of $50k in a given week.

Where was this money coming from if he went on a big winning streak.

People owed way smaller amounts of $2k (assani) and 8k (sheets) to name a few haven't been paid in over a year.

Haven't read all of the posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned. (Looks like its been resolved to both parties' satisfaction in any event)

Is anyone else concerned about potential (mis)uses of the precedent MM might have set by not paying? Less scrupulous people might make bets with people that they know have large outstanding debts to others, planning to not pay and cite Moneymaker's decision that he doesn't owe anything as part of the justification.

I definitely don't think Jason should receive one cent from Chris (to me, the only other acceptable solution is paying some portion or all
of MM's bet amount to JY's "creditors") until what he owes other people is settled or mostly settled. Regardless, just wanted to point out the potential precedent problem here.

I wonder if that works in other situations? Can I not pay my mortgage if the banking website is down? That would be super.

Hmmm