It doesn't really count since everyone cornering him is either a random drooler or a nobody who doesn't sports bet so therefore isn't eligible to have an opinion.

It's not welching. If the other guy was freerolling or scamming you, there was never a legitimate bet in the first place.

Damn you for bringing me into this

this

Again maybe I am in the minority of all this but as of 2 days ago, MM and JYoung agreed privately to a discounted settlement of the 18k or 25k or whatever the heck the number really was. The next thing we know, Assani comes on here and delivers the THREAD BOMBSHELL - Jason owed him $2000 for almost 18 months and hadn't paid. That revelation led Chris once and for all to decide AGAINST ANY PAYMENT to Jason Young.

Assani recently suggested that Chris perhaps pay the $2000 to him for the main reason that had Assani not come on here, MM likely agreed to pay Jason 4 -6 times that amount. Assani also stated that he would still want Jason to pay him back and any money he received would be sent immediately back to Chris.

I personally think this is a very fair solution because imo everyone wins and looks a little better in the court of public opinion.

1)Chris pays "something" towards his debt that helps Jason in the short term while he creates some kind of payment plan with Assani. Yes, "help Jason" might not be the right phrase but it certainly would be a token of gratitude towards Assani(who likely saved him 10k or more).

2)Jason has 1 debt cleared temporarily while he gets his finances back on track and works out a plan with Assani. I am sure Assani would update the 2+2 forum when Jason made payments and might just restore a little credibility to the JYoung haters(I said MIGHT).

3)Assani gets rewarded for coming on here and shedding some more light onto Jason and his "sports betting tendencies".

Anyways, just my opinion - feel free to agree or disagree.

both of them were clearly freerolling thus the bet is void, end of ****ing story

Assani and Sheets come across incredibly well. Jason Young...what a louse. His lack of apology, his messages to Assani trying to "share" the blame in non payment and of course the high probability that he was trying to freeroll our World Doofus of Poker champion.

Typical New Yorker behavior. I've played a few tourneys with Jason at the Borgata, I know his type.

I guess we are looking at it from a different perspective, and that makes it seem ridiculous to you. I look at it from how the parties described it, not from a hypothetical point of view, which you have asked me to. I call a guy and bet on a football game, its booked, whoever wins the bet gets the money. If I decide the guy is immoral, booked it himself, owes other people, doesn't have the money in his pocket, (or maybe it's because it's for 20 thousand dollars?), I can welch on my loss. It's still a welch right, good or bad reasons? Yes, from my perspective it was a made bet, and pretty routine, and a welch is not even a very bad sin. my point is its a welch and despite all the eloquent suppositions I disagree that this specific interaction has to be described any other way, tainted, null, void etc. My point is, call it what it is, and let the parties live with it, just my opinion, ridiculous or not.

He is an accountant - he must have a college degree I would imagine.

Being called a Doofus is kinda harsh, no???

666th post... spooky

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using 2+2 Forums

COOL - Didn't even notice

AND ON HALLOWEEN NO LESS!!!

Precisely..carry on

You seem pretty confident in those facts, and your definition of what a welch is.

MM booked bets, lost 20k. That's a fact.
He is not going to pay the bets for reasons he has posted, another fact.
Those reasons are in active dispute, fact.

Start from there, welch is a slang term anyway, so after the rest of the facts are in we can argue about all the qualifications that are implied in the term welch, but I'll start: not paying a bet has to be on the top line.

Here's another bookie who opened a restaurant:


COLLINGSWOOD, N.J. (AP) -- When he was on trial for racketeering, Angelo Lutz denied the mob's existence, but now he's using his past in organized crime to promote his new restaurant, the Kitchen Consigliere.

The sign out front echoes the logo for "The Godfather" but with a chef's hat. A mural on one wall puts Lutz, also known as Fat Ange, at a table with famous gangsters, both real (John Gotti) and fictional (Tony Soprano). Sconces to hold lights look like 9 mm handguns.

And some nights, he serves up a special he calls Joey's Pork Chops, in honor of Joseph "Skinny Joey" Merlino, the reputed Philadelphia-South Jersey mob boss. He's also happy to tell customers stories from his past.

Lutz is using some unsavory associations as he attempts a transformation from prisoner to opinionated celebrity chef.

Last week, he moved his operations from an 11-table restaurant to one three times as large on a prominent corner of the hip, foodie-friendly Philadelphia suburb of Collingswood.

"I never considered myself a gangster. I'm not a gangster. The government considered me a gangster. The government considered me a mob associate," he said. "But what I am now is a businessman."

Lutz, 49, grew up in South Philadelphia, where food was a big part of his life. According to federal prosecutors and a jury, he also did some bad along the way.

He was one of seven men convicted in a 2001 mob trial that made him a celebrity. He was the only non-"made" member of La Costa Nostra in the case and the only defendant allowed bail during the trial. And he talked and talked while he was out, calling into a sports talk radio show and cooking steaks for a TV news reporter.

The government said Lutz was a bookie and debt collector for the Mafia. Although he wasn't violent, he was sentenced to nine years in prison but later got nearly a year knocked off on appeal.

More at: http://news.yahoo.com/convicted-mobs...061015368.html

And that's why Chris should pay. If Jason flat out refused to pay others or didn't even acknowledge outstanding debts he owed that could potentially be grounds to not pay him. Chris wasn't getting free rolled, he simply wouldn't have gotten payed in a timely manner if he won. He woulda had to get Jason on a payment plan and wait a few years etc......... it sucks, but you shouldn't make no escrow bets with random people on the Internet if you aren't willing to deal with slow payment and it's definitely not a valid reason to welch.

Did any cash actually trade hands or was the first bet credit?

After more than 900 posts you really have to ask that???

Cut him some slack, maybe he is a little slow- it took him almost 6 years to hit 29 posts, lol.

The only thing I think is ridiculous is the idea that there is absolutely no circumstances under which one party could be justified in not paying.

If you discover after the fact that the person you've booked action is 100% scammer and never pays bets he loses, yes, you can say that it's your fault that you didn't do your research, and you'd probably be right. But does that really mean you should still pay the scammer? I don't think it does.

That said, I see the flip side. Obviously this would be a convenient way to, as you say, welch on a bet. The evidence would have to be pretty solid IMO, and it's not often going to be - if there's overwhelming evidence out there, you're usually going to know about it before you place the bet, and if you somehow don't find out, you're not likely to during the wager and before you pay.

I think the question in this case is whether the evidence of a bet placed with no intention to pay has reached the level of confidence that it justifies not paying the bet. I think there is such a level, and unless I've misunderstood, you don't - that's what we disagree on.

Love MM excuse with no phone or internet. What planet doesn't have internet?

What a trainwreck. Even if MM was getting freerolled, this thread has caused 10x the damage of just paying and moving on.

MM was never going to pay and found perfect excuse not to. Congrats. Saved $20k and ruined rep.

If there's one thing I've learnt from this thread it's don't willingly air your dirty laundry on 2+2 if you've ever used telecommunications or the Internet.

summary of key facts

1. Chris told Jason he was going to pay him numerous times, backed up by skype logs Jason has posted.

2. When Chris continued to evade payment Jason took it to 2+2.

3. Facing the real risk that damage to his reputation could damage future income, he tried to justify his non-payment. At one point he made a public statement in this thread saying he would pay the money, acknowledged that despite his reservations, Jason had no history of scamming and a reliable track record with other 2+2 members, only to renege within 48 hours.

4. The evidence posted in this thread suggests Chris had neither the means or the intent to pay Jason for his sports betting losses.



This seems to be a fairly straightforward case of Chris not honoring the agreement between him and Jason. Allegations that Jason would not have honored his end of the agreement are circumstantial. Moreover, Chris continued to tell Jason he would tell him he would pay him back until the dispute was recently made public on 2+2.


Disclaimer: I have no personal relationship with Chris, Jason, or any persons who may have a vested interest in the outcome.

Um, in your mind that was an extremely accurate description of the events... but the next question I have for you is:

How long have you and Jason been best friends????