I don't see that as analogous because who's pocket does the money come out of? If Tom pays him, that means Tom has lost money whereas Peter has won money... so his profit came out of Tom's pocket. I doubt that is in the spirit of the deal. Whereas if Tom paid him before he went into makeup, then it would make sense, because they'd have both made money and thus it wasn't coming out of Tom's pocket.

Also, the filings with the IRS are based on actual law, whereas poker staking is not. So with the IRS you can simply read the law and follow it exactly, but with poker you have to use common sense as to what the spirit of the arrangement is. Should you be rewarded for losing at poker? No. If Tom pays him now, is he being rewarded for losing at poker? Yes.

Not real familiar with tax law if you think you can simply read the law and follow it exactly.

can you guys explain how asking someone who owes him 225k is being a bad friend or the wrong thing to do? the makeup seems entirely irrelevant to me, its a business transaction.

Im not sure if this totally translates,
But lets say, you and me are really good friends, and we have done a bit for each other.

One day I ask to borrow your car for a 5 minute job, and you say, "sure, can you just fill it up with gas and Ill pay you back when you bring the car back"

So anyway, I take the car and fill it up, then I completely **** this car up, im curbing it, doing sweet jumps, and all kinds of burnouts, I even run over a cat with it. I then bring the car back, toss you the keys and I say "hey, you owe me $50".

Do you see how context matters?

Hire an accountant or lawyer. It's not analogous to this scenario...

no because that isn't what happened here at all

the equivalent would be if your boss asks you to go 50/50 with him on a fantasy football team and has you sign up on your credit card and you guys lose and he decides not to pay you your weeks salary

I think it's more like if I agree to give a prostitute $200 for sex, we do it and it's great, but I forgot my wallet. So I agree to pay her on friday. But then on thursday I get tested and turns out she gave me aids. Now when friday rolls around I refuse to pay her the $200, and I say I will only give her $10 instead, and won't even charge her for my medical bills. She thinks I still owe her the full amount, so she gets her pimp to beat me up (like going on twitter and ruining Tom's rep).

I like it

Dont think any analogy will work perfect, but to dumb it down and say what submersible said is just wrong.

Let's say my friend owed me 10k.

COVID hits and it renders me unemployed with kids etc.

I borrow 30k from him.

Am I really gonna be like hey you owe me 10k first?

Hell no even though technically if be right.

If I'm dealing with some bank I'd be technical but not with a friend..

Dwan probably should have paid 225 k first but if you're Jetten and you then dump 1.6 mil of your friends money are you seriously gonna be like hey you owe me 225k?

The other stuff he seems scummy on but the Jetten stuff I get his point.

i dont think your logic really makes sense. why would someone get staked for high rollers if they were going to be liable for losses from fronting their backer buyins that would never get repaid? jetten almost certainly made life decisions based on having x amount of money (and very likely wouldnt have regged the tournaments he lost in if he knew he wasn't fully backed either by not playing or selling action). there isn't really a lot of place for feelings when it comes to business like this for large amounts of money. you dont just martyr 4x the average yearly salary because your friend put you in games and you lost. idk if you're never done business with people or what your deal is but jetten being staked for tournaments and losing isnt dumping your friends money, its a gambling venture that they both agreed on (durr being a 20 year pro who's staked hundreds of people knew the risks). you dont just get to unilaterally decide not to pay a debt because you lost money on something else. also he waited 4 years to go public on the debt after the run around by a guy playing the absolute highest stakes in the world. i think his behavior is entirely reasonable and im not sure how many people are just going to write off a debt of this amount that they got freerolled for, particularly by someone who doesnt seem broke.

is pretty easy to casually suggest someone else should eat 250k(!) when it isn't your money

Apples and oranges.

Jetten doesn’t ‘owe’ Tom $1.6m. He owes Tom $1.6m of makeup. Totally different things.

Tom can do whatever he wants with Jetten’s makeup. He can continue backing Jetten (unlikely), and if he wins, Tom gets in all until the makeup is cleared (ignoring alternative makeup deals to simplify things).

Tom could choose to sell Jetten’s $1.6m of makeup to someone else. Sounds like Tom values that debt at around .25 to the dollar, so $400k. If someone buys Jetten’s makeup off Tom for $400k, then starts backing Jetten, then Jetten needs to pay that guy $1.6m before he collects.

I’m guessing Jetten’s $1.6m is probably valued at less than $400k, but there must be some point at which it’s +EV to buy it up. Like, I’d buy it for $5.

Maybe Tom should ‘sell ‘ Jetten’s $1.6m to Bob at a value of $200k. Bob deducts $200k from whatever Tom owes him, Tom pays Jetten, then Bob makes a new arrangement with Jetten.

Knowing Bob’s luck, Jetten immediately ships a high roller, clears the makeup, and Bob throws another $1.6m onto the pile.

That’s the answer.

TLDR: The $1.6m of makeup is an asset Tom owns. But that has nothing to do with the debt he owes Peter. Your analogy is flawed.

Also, ‘technically’ you’d be wrong. If your friend owed you $10k, then gave you $30k, then he paid off his debt already, and now you owe him $20k.

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

Whether or not you see it as analogous has little to do with whether or not it is analogous. The point I was trying to illustrate was that when there are well defined settlement terms, then that is how transactions are structured. What difference does it make if IRS rules are actual law? Do you think when people enter staking arrangements, the terms of the deal are not clearly outlined in the form of a contract, verbal or written? If they agreed to settle at a certain figure, then everything after that milestone is effectively a new makeup deal that starts from 0, and the settlement figure becomes a debt that the backer owes. There is no clawback. The fact that you have to go through these mental gymnastics to justify your position should clue you in to how illogical it is.

Yes I agree now, I was thinking about it wrong. Given that the makeup is type of asset (which can be resold), its separate from the cashout (which is a liability). I think Peter was right that the makeup is irrelevant. I already said he was right earlier, but it was for a diffrernet (wrong) reason, I said earlier he was right because Tom already agreed to pay. But he's right regardless based on the asset/liability reason. I agree the law comparison was irrelevant, because the asset/liability thing is objective and well-accepted enough to be like a law. I wasn't trying to say I had a strong opinion earlier, I thought it was unclear how it worked because there was a disagreement in the first place. But now it appears Tom is just being unreasonble.

Thank you for explaining how staking works. I'm just confused why anybody would steak another player after your explanation. It's only a win win for the person getting staked. If I steak you and you lose I'm 100% at a loss. If you win I get half of what you win plus all expenses. Why would anybody do that? When people ask me to borrow money I tell everyone the same thing "I'd rather lose your friendship and keep my money than lose the friendship and the money".

Because if the person is good at poker or gets lucky you make money

Then why don't they have money to play? If they have bad bankroll management (rule number 1 in poker) then I would feel even less comfortable steaking them. If they are on a downslide or been running bad and are down then I'd just be lighting it on fire by giving it to you. So then there is luck.... yea. No. I can get lucky myself.

dumping doesn't mean it was intentional. he absolutely dumped 1.6 m of Dwans money on their gambling venture. If true being 1.6m in makeup to someone while telling them they owe you 225k for an earlier win especially when they're your friend is absurd. If a friend backed you for 2 different businesses. One you made a little bit of money on and the other you lost tons of money are you really gonna tell them "hey you owe me money for the first one"?

Dwan is eating 1.6 m. I'm not casually telling Jetten to eat anything.

I think Dwan looks scummy for a lot of different things. but if what he said about the stuff with Jetten is also true then Jetten looks scummy on that.

Jetton asking for the 250k at this point is more scummy than Tom not paying it.

I know you invested $10k in my business that went bust recently, but can I have that $20 back that you borrowed from me 3 years ago?

I understand the reference, but it's a weak analogy and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the situation on your end. Charlie's lawyer was confident at first but then immediately folded under pressure, whereas I wasn't claiming to be confident in the first place. This was clear because I said "based on common sense, I think...", meaning it's not intended to be an expert analysis that I stake my reputation behind. If I declared myself an expert in staking, then immediately folded under pressure to a real expert, that would be analogous. But anyway I will stop annoying people and exit the convo.

Imo this is far and away the most apt analogy.

I think what people are failing to consider is the totality of volume of all the various deals and stuff ppl like Dwan are doing that when the facts are all aired out sure he can seem like a scumbag, but we really dont know all of the interpersonal **** that also is happening btwn both parties that build up to these moments. If you for example are going out of your way to help your friend, youve poured millions in buyins into him and the first time he wins something he immediately wants to get paid, that'd be sorta annoying.

Then in the coming weeks after this win and asking to be paid you havent seen him irl yet, but in this time hes lost 1.6m of your money youve backed him that would also be frustrating. We dont know all the deets, but its sometimes silly that we make such damning character assessments when I'm sure we've all done things where until you were able to explain your side and the context to a situation that on the surface you could seem like youre in the wrong. I know I have.

yeah i mean i feel like you're missing the point. jetten most likely wouldn't have played the tournaments if he knew he had that amount of his own action. why would he get penalized for doing his backer a favor by advancing him money? what would the point of chopping out even be if he had to give it back if he lost? being friends with someone or feeling bad that you lost them money gambling isn't really enough reason to write off 200k that they owe you. you guys are looking at it like this is 50$ that you owe your friend from a home game or something, not large amounts of money that have serious ramifications on taxes / lifestyle / opportunity cost. its wild to be honest

i do agree that backing the way its set up sucks for the backer, but this isn't some random rec he tricked into doing business; durr has backed hundreds of people since the full tilt days. im sure he knows how the arrangements work (as evidenced by him agreeing he owes the money).

That's how staking deals work. They carry risk for the backer. In compensation for that risk, the backer gets a large percentage of the profits. You don't have to try and frame and muddy the narrative with leading words like dumping. If they settled at 500k, then barring outside circumstances, that is a debt that Tom owes regardless of what jetten went on to lose.