Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain
So, MM was supposed to ask for and receive full financials on both Jason and the now apparently imaginary bookie before placing bets?
FWIW, I don't think that MM needs to prove that if he had won the bet that Jason intended to defraud him. All he needs to prove is that Jason did not have enough cash on hand to pay of his bet had he won--and I think that the evidence in this thread proves this pretty convincingly.
I don't know whether Jason is a scam-artist or not (even though his apparent lie about the "bookie" undermines his credibility)...maybe he's just another lying degen who uses magical thinking to cover potential bad outcomes instead of solid money management.
The two main issues that led me to believe CM was more in the wrong than Jason were:
1. Postponing payment indefinitely without escrow -a few weeks to check that you aren't getting scammed is reasonable.
2. Confronting Jason's associates and prying into his debts instead of (or at least before) confronting him about additionally booki information/solvency.
To a certain extent, Like I said in my earlier post, its like a bank refusing to honor a home loan, and pointing to the subsequent foreclosure as proof that the owner would have been at fault.
So even though Jason's evidence that he both intended to and was capable of honoring the bet appear tenous, Chris's actions seemed to suggest he was acting with less than good faith in the immediate aftermath.
It is entirely possible that Jason came out of this better than he deserved, but it is difficult case for Chris to establish this late, and given his reactions to the payment he was asked for.
Quote:
jason has been around the poker world a long time and I couldn't find one person he has wronged outside of this situation. Based on that I am paying the money
I think this is a very principled way to end this and I commend MM for trying to end this with good faith.
Last edited by monikrazy; 10-30-2013 at 01:26 PM.