Agree on Vertucci doing a good job with Dwan talking in circles. And I can't stand Vertucci.

The Jetten thing he had way more leg to stand on if what he says is true. The Jungleman and Haralobos stuff is pure nonsense.

With Jetten I can actually see some grey area. Like yea if Dwan was supposed to have paid Kitten 225k already and then Jetten lost 1.6 million of Dwan's money and you're friends Jetten shouldn't be asking for it.



This whole thing really goes to show how broke so many of these nosebleeds players really are.

Ahh ok sorry

Just read the rest of this thread and also tried to listen to the Vertucci interview… painful

The way casinos and books prey on sick people is definitely predatory. Unfortunately that is human nature, the weak get eaten. If a sharp can drop a books bottom line or bankrupt a smaller one good for them

Not sure why anyone would keep buying pieces after they let someone walk away from make up.

But I guess if Dwan agreed to that then he owes Jetten. It’s a sour spot for sure.

—-

I also want to hear more about Dwan degenning the winnings off on the sports book in the Bob conflict.

—

Dwan just doesn’t come off looking sharp here in any of the stories. The whole “he pissed me off now I don’t owe” is also a bad look. That’s what fish say.

Dwan doesn't seem like the kind of guy who pays taxes. I would be shocked if he actually had a home/residence. If he wasn't playing on stream games he would be a ghost (he was pretty much unseen for like 5 years until Phua started Triton). He really missed his calling as a CIA spook

If someone robs a fentanyl dealer I don't care, I don't shed a tear for him just like I don't for the books/casinos that get screwed by the use of beards. I don't think anyone here cares if the casino gets screwed out of money (IE Stockholm syndrome). We were arguing whether the law should be changed such that casinos can no longer ban winning players. That's a separate argument. By the same logic, casinos should not be able to ban card-counting blackjack players. But they are allowed to ban both, because it's not a nanny state and they're allowed to only offer -EV games if they want to. This is different from a fentanyl dealer because gambling can be done responsibly whereas fentanyl cannot.

Stumbled on this gem several pages (and years) back.

It's investing, Dwan thought he would make money. That's the motivation. Although after the fact Dwan is doing his best to make it sound like charity for a friend. In this case it seems like it was smart of Dwan to keep buying pieces after a bad experience with Jetten. Since Dwan made money with the 2nd investment in Jetten after losing on the first.

My guess is that it was different types of deals. From what I gather, and I didn't study every word or anything , I just watched the interview. The first deal seemed like some kind of backing of Jetten in which Jetten lost 1.6M. Sounds big but I have no idea what games of tournies it was for...maybe they were huge games and 1.6M wasn't even that much. They terminated this deal and there was either no makeup or it was forgiven.

Then sometime in the future they entered into a new deal. Obviously Dwan thought he would make money off of Jetten in whatever games he was staking Jetten in this time. He was correct and Jetten won. But for whatever reason Dwan is semi-broke and can't / won't pay Jetten. Probably from other losing investments or bad decisions. Now Dwan decides to retro-actively start talking about how there should have been makeup from the previous deal despite it being clear there was none. I'm sure Jetten wouldn't have done the new deal if he owed makeup.

The whole thing is convoluted nonsense. But as Borg said a few posts up and is by far the most important lesson of all of this. "This whole thing really goes to show how broke so many of these nosebleeds players really are."

I recently tried to tell one of the agents through a grey area poker site how basically nobody wins in poker, they said that's nonsense. But what I meant is that there are a lot who can win for short periods but to win consistently over many years and continue to hold rank at the stakes you're accustomed to is pretty damn difficult. That's why Doyle was incredible. I think it's mostly one of those things that if you have enough gamble to play in games that you could win and lose a few million you're likely to be a degenerate and blow money in the casino. And when you have a huge ego and love the action, who the hell can step down from 300-600nl, 2k-4k, or whatever to play 25-50nl to recover? I'd bet there are very few.

Rosaparks point was just that if part of Dwans argument is that he shouldn’t owe Haralabob because the bet was placed through a beard, that’s absurd because it’s only “unethical” from the bookies standpoint and nobody with a brain finds it problematic for bookies to lose money to smart bettors no matter how the bet was placed.
This legal discussion is your own derail.

Jetten won first then got 1.6 million in makeup.

The funny thing is I've used 7 or 8 legal books that are already out of business. All of them were giving out way too much money.

In 2021 I made a 25k withdrawal from a site called betamerica that doesn't exist anymore.

Their website looked like it was from 1995 but their odds were really off on a lot of markets and at the time moved really slow. Once Draftkings started using the same odds provider as them (sb tech) the lines got a lot worse bc Draftkings was on all off the odds scraping sites.

They took about a week to approve my withdrawal and another week or so to hit my bank account. When I looked up their monthly revenue it was something like 300k as they were dead last in NJ. I remember joking with one of my friends they must be running around the office saying where the hell are we gonna get 25k to pay this guy.

Is he losing at poker or blowing his money on other things?

You are summarizing the posts I was responding to wrong. Read the underlined part, this is what I was responding to. This is different from whether or not Dwan has a legitimate excuse not to repay, it's an argument that casinos shouldn't be able to ban winning players.

Books should not be able to ban winning players. This is not debatable. Side with the books if you want to cosplay as a villain for the purpose of being able to say "I'm smart and losers aren't" or the ever-so apathetic "it is what it is" that morons say as if they have no control over the world around them. What is the purpose of the business if it does not offer the service it offers. This means it ONLY wins, and this $ disappears forever from the communities it is removed from.

Let me open a business in your town that provides a service of zero value, refuses to give back any money, and only coughs back tax revenue into the community and see how you feel about it. There is no upside to books existing at all if they operate like that, and they are akin to the fentanyl dealer you reference. Everyone is sold tax revenue as a reason for legal sportsbetting but it's literally setting fire to 60% of the $ that was ALREADY in those states to get back 40%.

We already saw rises in rake in most private games/clubs/sites/casinos make it so that there are no net winners at poker in some games. Are you okay with this also? Try to focus less on defending a provable point and consider it from a world-building standpoint. Do you want the idiot neighor across the street from you to have $1,000 in the bank and be comfortable or do you want them to broke and angry. Giving a damn about other people is not a nanny state. Your worldview is small, and needs to grow.

I am not even anti-bookmaking, it just needs to be reigned in. You can cap betsizing across the board, fine. You can charge juice if it's capped at an industry standard -110. You can run predatory promos and bonuses and operate the same way, but if you refuse to lose, you cannot continue.

Banning winning blackjack players is also preposterous. Think of the message. They present a difficult challenge, and people develop skill and overcome it. This is literally how society advances, and casinos/books are like "nah, just suffer pls". Investing your time in promoting stagnation is a fool's errand; don't defend it.

No point reading the rest of your post then. It's not debatable!

It’s an opinion on the internet. You don’t have to reply. I visit here for the awesome Tom dwan not your essays on casinos law. What you’re arguing is off topic, boring as hell (literally just defending the law), and like, why??
I feel dumb for having re started this when it sort of died down though.

Yea stop it with the casinos being allowed to only win. Most ridiculous thought process ever. The law is irrelevant here as everyone is just stating their opinion on the matter.

There will never be close to enough sharps to have a big enough edge over the books to make a serious dent financially relative to the fish. Hell, it could be good advertising for them to show "hey, you can win money too (suckers)" .

Saying "******ed" can simply be explained by not being terminally online and spending most of his time in non english speaking countries. It was a completely fine word to say 5-6 years ago, if you dont live on twitter you would have no clue that its now heavily frowned upon.

Sounds like Jetten is technically right about the debt. It also sounds like they were friends and thats why he got off so easily with the 1.6m staking loss, so to then go on and rigidly collect on a much smaller debt further on makes him sound like a trash person and "friend".

I would never go into those kind of staking deals with friends, but if I did and my friend wanted to collect under these circumstances I definitely wouldnt consider them a friend any more.

Has Jetten publicly spoken about the 1.6milly makeup and whether he has any intention of continuing to play poker in the future?

Jetten saying the make-up is irrelevant is just stupid, of course its relevant if you are not willing to play through it.

I re-iterate that whilst "technically" its clear Dwan owes the ~250k if at this point Jetten isnt willing to play whilst in 1.6milly of makeup for either Tom or someone who is willing to buy the make-up, it makes a huuuggee difference.

When Jetten chooses to keep playing despite the cashout still being processed, once he loses all of the profits, I think common sense would say the cashout is cancelled because there's no profits to cashout anymore. But I think he's right that the makeup is irrelevant once Dwan agrees to pay him back anyway and already gave him 30k of the 250k.

It's hard to say what really went down on FTP. I'm guessing Dwan, Galfond and the Dang bros had pieces of each other whenever Guy sat for massive stakes so the actual money swings might be pretty small when compared to this insane graph, but what the hell do I know.

As for Dwan and money, I read "**** It Holla Ballas" like two years ago and I seem to remember a story where Dwan dished out something like a 50% freeroll to some dude before running it up online during a stay in Europe in 2006/2007. Fast foward some months, Dwan meets the dude who had forgotten all about it, mumbles "Here's your share" and hands out several hundred thousand $$$.

Now I'm not saying Dwan is a saint, but I have trouble understanding how Jetten, Haralabob or Jungle would have any type of claim that would hold up in a court of law (which incidentally might be the main reason why all of this crap is dealt with on Twitter). As for Haralabob specifically, I'm struggling to understand how "bearding" wouldn't qualify as cheating. As per Bob's statements, his "beard" Dwan won him high seven figures. How he can take all this money and still get all pissed off over not getting like 5% of the total amount is just beyond me. We're talking about a guy who can throw $4m at some random 3rd division club from Spain just so he doesn't get bored with all that sweet BTC money.

I know alot of people love to hate dwan and call him broke or whatever but this shits pretty weak. He ovbiously could have handled it better but a dude demanding 200k while hes 1.6 mil makeup is super ****ed especially to a friend and the haralobob stuff just seems super complicated and needs to be mediated by trusted people with all the receipts and opinions brought up.

If you're up 100k in a stock trade on dec31st, took your profit, rebought into the position that day and proceeded to lose 100k in the next year before you filed taxes, what would your "common sense" tell you that you owed to the irs, taxes on 100k or 0?

Whether or not the cash out was "processed" is irrelevant. If they agreed to settle at certain milestones then dwan is obligated to the figure they settled on.