So these texts confirm that Chris was indeed busto when he placed those bets with Jason, and was indeed promising to pay the money he owed.

These texts took place in a 6-week period between July 25 and September 2, 2012 -- about 14-16 months ago.

However, while Chris' desperation is evident and actually kind of sad, these texts don't change the situation at all.

I already mentioned way back on page 35 that I concluded Chris was broke at the time of the bet, and couldn't pay Jason if he lost. This simply verifies that assumption, which wasn't a very difficult one to make:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=521

This isn't a huge bombshell that Chris was broke and probably freerolling. Anyone with a brain already figured that out.

However, these texts do nothing to prove that Jason wasn't also freerolling.

These texts also do nothing to prove that this "bookie" really existed.

So when it's all said and done, it looks like we had two broke, desperate degenerates, each freerolling the other in a sportsbet. Jason took it one step further by apparently inventing a fictitious "bookie" taking the bets, thus tricking Chris into thinking he was betting with someone who would likely pay him.

As I said earlier, the bet should have been completely null and void.

If you are being freerolled/scammed while placing a bet, you should never owe that money when you lose. Never. Doesn't matter if you're also freerolling/scamming yourself. That only comes into play if you win (in which case YOU shouldn't get paid, either!) If the person betting with you is doing so with funds they don't have, and they aren't up front with it when the bet is placed, the bet is null and void.

Otherwise, anyone could bet any amount of money, say "I can't pay" if they lose, and collect if they win. Every broke person looking for free money would be placing freerolled bets with people if everyone was expected to pay under such circumstances.

Similarly, if I come to you as an agent of a Nigerian Prince looking to get $100 million into the country, and offer you $1 million for your help, I am scamming you.

If you don't realize it and think you're actually scamming me by paying me the $15,000 "processing fees" with counterfeit money, I can't come to you later and demand the real $15,000, once you realize you were being scammed in the first place.

The whole "agreement" was a scam on both sides, and it becomes void.

Same thing here.

And Jason, you seem to like writing rambling diatribes about how you have paid hundreds of thousands to this person and that person over the years without a problem.

Big deal. If there's something we have learned from our time in the poker community, it's that a trustworthy guy often becomes the opposite once he no longer has money to his name.

Let's deal with today.

You seem to be failing to understand why so many people here are skeptical of you, and also seem to be confused as to what questions you need to answer.

Let me help you out, and I'll even put it in color, just so you don't miss it:

1) Can you provide any evidence that this bookie really existed? If you can't do it publicly, can you do it privately to a trusted, unbiased third party? If not, WHY?

2) Can you provide any evidence that you had the money to cover Chris' bet at the time he made it? Show us that you had $20,000 more than all of the money you owed others on that day.


(hint: Claiming you were willing to pay $5k on that day does nothing to prove you had $20k!)

Please provide these answers. We're 54 pages in, and the two items above are what everyone wants to know.

Everything else you write is just fluff and garbage, and nobody besides a few braindead monkeys seems to be falling for it.

yet you were the one threatening to bring all of this here

I am obviously hoping that the truth comes out completely, everyone gets paid, and I get paid. However, if it ends up that:

1. MM was set to pay JY somewhere between $15-25k
2. I made a series of posts that I knew beforehand might hurt the chances of JY getting paid by MM(and thus hurt the chances of me getting paid), but I posted them anyway because I believed that the honest truth is NEVER a bad thing.
3. MM saw my posts, and those were a big reason he changed his mind about paying JY
4. MM doesn't pay JY, JY doesn't pay me(or doesn't DRASTICALLY improve his communication methods and set up a payment plan)
5. MM is now $15-25k richer, while I'm still $2022 poorer



Would it be out of line for me to ask MM to ship me the $2022 or is that a reasonable request? Just to clarify: I'm 100% asking the thread for their opinion, and I'm not arguing that he should pay me. Its just a thought that ran through my head just now, so I figured I'd post it. Basically I just want to get my money and I don't really care about all the other drama, but at the same time I feel as if I must be 100% honest throughout this ordeal(so I didn't hold back information that may decrease my chances of ever seeing my money).

edited to add: And obviously I would still try to collect from JY, and pay MM back if/when JY does pay me(although I'd be lying if I said that I would have the same motivation to spend time/effort on collecting if this occurred).

yea if you want me to comment ill need you to give me all the specifics as ive honestly paid minimal attention to anything outside the jy/mm issue since i know with certainty what is and isnt true there

While I think MM would be "OK" to walk away from the debt, I think he should "settle" and pay half the amount owed to help his tarnished (ruined?) rep and because his hands are far from clean in this. And JY should snap accept that because he probably "deserves" zero.

Edit - And obv anything paid out should go to people JY owes.

Yes, it would be unreasonable.

Chris is NOT $15-$25k richer. He did not make a dime from this whole transaction with Jason's phony "bookie".

Instead, he lost money to the fake bookie, and agreed to pay Jason as the "agent" for this fake person, not realizing at the time he was being scammed.

Of course, the texts we saw confirm that Chris was also freerolling the "bookie", not realizing that the bookie was fake and he would never get paid if he won.

So we basically had two guys trying to freeroll each other, but the good news is that zero money actually changed hands.

Since it was a scam on both sides, nobody got richer as a result of this, and the whole thing should be completely dropped.

Therefore, Chris also does not owe YOU anything, as none of the above affected you at all. Jason's freerolling of you was a completely separate matter.

No, that would be a horrible idea.

Paying half would be the absolute worst thing for Chris, as it would both cost him 5 figures and still make it appear he welched on a bet.

Chris owes nothing because he was being scammed, even if he was also freerolling on his end.

Nobody owes anything to anyone. They were both betting with monopoly money, and didn't realize it.

The end.

/thread

What? JY owes you


Beat me to it.

Why delete relevant conversation?

Also...

I am wondering Chris, if you could elaborate at all about this hidden account you will be playing t$'s on if/when you get to Canada? This could effect my future business with PS.

Now that AC/Jersey is in the mix, we'll be see'n you round these parts no?

How about answering the two questions I posed for Jason, since you know him so well?

And don't just say, "Yes, the bookie is real, and yes, Jason had the money."

I am asking you, as his friend, why Jason feels it's acceptable to refuse to provide Chris or anyone else evidence of either of these items.

We're just supposed to take him at his word that the bookie exists (LOL) and that he had the money when the "bookie" bet with Chris (also LOL), despite all evidence to the contrary.

post #532 has the exact quotes from when we made our bet on 2p2

post #543 has the exact quotes from all messages sent by either of us on twitter/email

post #643 included additional quotes from 2p2 PMs I sent him, as well as noting that I used the 2p2 feature to send an email to him


As far as I know, I didn't leave out anything. Also everything is dated exactly, so you can see how well he kept in touch with me and you can assess whether you think it was a proper means to go about settling up a debt you owe with someone.


Again, thanks for your help....getting reasonable and honest people in here to help the truth come out is the best thing that could possibly happen.

Fair enough, like I said I"m not looking to argue- just looking for some thoughts on the matter.

I was kinda thinking about it as analogous to giving someone a reward for returning a lost wallet. You obviously don't have to do it, but since you realize that the person clearly put doing the right thing over their best interests(i.e. not keeping the wallet for themselves) and since you are richer now than you would've been had they not done that good act, then often times you'll give them a small % of what was in the wallet.

Basically, this situation kinda sucks for me in that I could've just not posted in here and probably been paid by now(at least I'm giving JY the benefit of the doubt and assuming that had MM paid him then he would've instantly contacted me and paid me- as I said earlier, I am choosing to believe JY and give him the benefit of the doubt). Or I could've sent a PM to JY that was like "I see the thread between you and MM. If you promise me that I'll get what you owe me, I will go in there and back you completely." But instead I came in here and have done absolutely nothing except try to be as honest and open about everything I know or can add to the situation.


But I'm objective enough to realize that any views I have on this matter are surely biased, which is why I want your guys opinion. If others agree with you two, then I will absolutely drop this particular line of reasoning and never mention it again.

you want the name of the bookie? that is literally LOL to ask......nobody on this planet would ever answer that question.....but lets say for arguments sake that he did tell you.......then what? are you going to go find out his phone # and call him and say "hey... can you resolve a disagreement in my poker forum? were you really the bookie who refused to pay all these people the money they won? " i mean come on ....thats just the dumbest thing ive ever heard

and as for the $$......what do you want ? a bank statement? he should provide 2+2 with his banking records? or what if he like most other poker players just had a bunch of cash ......do you expect that he had time stamped photo evidence of his cash piles? oh but wait....maybe he just took those pics of someone elses money with the thought that this thread may come out 2 yrs later and hed need them! how would you like him to prove any of this in a non ridiculous manner....bottom line is......i know hes telling the truth...
and to go a step further......if hes not the bookie......it wouldnt even matter if hes broke....because hes not booking the bets......you have any idea what % of agents or runners our there really have enough money to cover all the bets being made should the real bookie just decide to screw everyone? PROBABLY NONE or else theyd be booking themselves.....so his finances arent relevant

I don't think he meant hidden PS accounts. I think he meant he will have accounts hidden from his wife lol.

To clarify Assani, it would be a courtesy extended by Chris at this point imho. Seeing how this is going I would think it highly unlikely.

Ok nm if I misunderstood. Hope wifey aint reading.

Once dareu2call reads those posts I doubt we will here from him again. Assani Fischers bet was in April the same time as Chris's and it was for a lot less money and to this day he has never paid.

I don't know enough about the bookie/agent relationship to comment on this specifically. However, I would note that "everyone else is doing it!!!" is not a valid excuse for poor behavior. Either you should argue that it is morally acceptable to be an agent without having the means to cover the losses should the guy you are vouching for not end up paying or you should argue that it is not morally acceptable. The fact that others out there may be doing it too seems like a complete non-sequitur.


I actually think its kinda an interesting question: Suppose you are a guy with a $10k bankroll. Your friend(who I assume you know fairly well and think you can trust) is a big time bookie and tells you about how you can make some extra money as an agent for him. You realize that this means you must vouch for him. You don't have anywhere near the money to actually pay should he skip town and owe people thousands and thousands of dollars, but you do trust him based upon your previous dealings with him. Is it morally ok for you to accept the agent/runner position?

what are you asking me though? he acknowledged you guys made the bet.....and he has agreed to pay you......what is the question?

Your excuses remind me a lot of Lock Poker.

"Oh, sure we have all of the player money! But we won't prove it because that would open it up to getting seized by the US government!"

When Lock is asked if they can get a trusted third-party auditing firm to prove the money exists, they respond, "No, because how do we know we can trust the auditing firm?"

So, in the face of all logic that leads to the conclusion that Lock is broke, we are supposed to believe that they have our money because..... well, they said so.

And that's what Jason is doing.

He wants us to believe the bookie exists, but he won't name the bookie either publicly (even though the guy scammed him) or privately (even though we could easily find countless trustworthy people to volunteer to verify this without ever revealing his identity.)

He wants us to believe he had the money, despite the fact that he has a long line of people coming forward claiming that he owes them money. Also, even Jason himself admits he has no cash now, but claims it was all invested in a restaurant. He will not explain why he invested his cash in a restaurant while owing people money, or alternately, why he was taking bets he couldn't cover if all of his cash was already invested.

All of the evidence in this thread points to two things:

1) Jason was booking Chris' bets with a fictitious third party.

2) Jason was broke and in debt at the time Chris bet with him.


Jason can say, "I have nothing to prove to any of you", or "You're demanding too much personal information", but if that's true, why bring this to 2+2?

Jason pleaded his case.

The vast majority here felt he was being extremely shady/dishonest, and asked for proof to refute the logical conclusions that he was broke and invented a phony bookie.

He is refusing to provide that proof.

There is nothing further to discuss, if that's the case.

The burden of proof is on Jason at this point, and if he can't/won't provide it, then he's stuck. Enough evidence has been presented regarding this being a likely scam/freeroll, and if Jason won't provide evidence to refute it, then we're done.

He can bring out a million sycophants like you to sing his praises, but we're still done until he provides evidence that he has been honest with us.

before i continue arguing with you.....who are you? who made you judge and jury? who says because you say something is one way that it is in fact that way? you keep asking questions but refuse to answer any......what happens if he gives a name? how do you then proceed? if its some random dude......and you confront him......hes obligated to be honest? and as for the money......if he isnt the book......why is his money even relevant?

Kilowatt, what planet do you live on?

I, like you, believe Jason was the book.

However, L-O-freakin'-L at requesting (demanding) him to out his book. Again, I agree with you that he doesn't probably exist.

Real life bookies are not internet tough guys. They are real ones. With real muscle. If word got out that he was named on an internet forum or it got leaked from a "trusted" third-party, there would be real consequences.

Ur "request" is absurd.

Discover what? Something that may or may not have ever existed and is pure unproven innuendo as far as both parties in this are concerned? This is gambling, not law school mental masturbation. Once the money is down, or the bet is booked, if you didn't evaluate all the angles too bad, your team loses, pay the bet.

Many on here have bet with mob bookies, shady web sites, illegal home games, and still line up to put the money down. Do your due diligence before you sit down.

You make a bet, you win and you get money, you lose you pay money, that is not a pointless statement. You can bet with a good friend, a scum-bag or a criminal, but 'you' place the bet. I am paying for the loss of my bet, not the upright character of the person who I bet with, or the unproven possibility that he got one over on me or others.

If one of the parties doesn't pay its a welch no matter what the reason. A welch is a welch, no matter what kind of ugly little box its wrapped up in.

BTW, as far as details, show me anywhere in this monstrosity your 100% surety that either one of these guys planned or was active in free-rolling, rather than the standard degen practice of betting first and scrambling for the money later.

If Jason was really dealing with a tough guy who scared him so much that Jason wouldn't name him (publicly or privately) after getting scammed, then that's on Jason.

This isn't Jason's current bookie.

This is supposedly some scumbag who scammed Jason and ran off in early 2012.

If Jason is really so terrified of the guy to where he can't name him to anyone (even in private), then he also has to eat whatever losses he incurred as his agent.

Otherwise, anyone can say "I have a bookie, you're actually betting with him", and then say the guy ran off when people want to collect winnings. And if they question the guy's existence, you just say, "Oh, well he's really tough and will break my legs if I talk."

Come on, now. Even Jason isn't claiming that. He just won't answer anything. He won't even tell us WHY he won't name the bookie, even after the guy scammed him.

Dareyou, meet Kilowatt

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/ultimatebeat/46829801

1:53 in