Even if Jetten had 0 dollars he would still be 30 million richer than Dwan. One of them is broke but it aint Jetten

hi Peter

hi Peter

Hi Tim

Hi Apathy

Literally everyone you are arguing against have been saying that technically, Jetten could be right and make an argument for his case. But that hes still a major douche and anyone assessing the situation from the outside sees that its ridiculous to expect to get the 250k after the events that went down.

Onionsareyummy has to be someone who is being staked himself and that is how he is so adamant about arguing that Jetten should be given the 250k even after losing 1.6m of his backers money, based on technicalities. Only explanation.

Here is a situation for you:

1. I expend my own funds in a home game
2. A friend offers to stake me for the rest of the game, friendly deal, he takes on the risk for 50% of profits.
3. Im up 500 dollars and text my friend "hey Im up 500 and I wanna settle ok? but can I keep playing staked tonight, the game is super good!"
4. He says "yea sure"
5. I go on to lose 5k of my friend's money in the same game
6. Later I text my friend "Hey bro you owe me 250, where is my money?"

Whos the douchebag in this situation? If you answer the backer, lol. Only someone who lacks both common sense and empathy can think that the 250 should be paid under circumstances like this, even though its possible to argue that "ackshually, he technically owes 250". Especially when the deal is made between friends, no contracts or anything.

Facts.

Based on logic you mean.

It's interesting that you bring up both common sense and empathy, given that your message seems to lack the former and applies the latter selectively. You think that a $250,000 debt just gets written off out of goodwill? On top of that, your analogy is nonsensical because it suggests you either think Jetten pulled the settlement figure out of thin air or you're clueless about how staking deals work.

To fix your analogy, consider either of these:
- You put up the money to play in the game. The amount you lose is more than the amount you put up. Your backer refuses to pay you back the buy-in.
- Your friend agreed to back you and settle at every $500. You finish your session and are up $500. He says he'll pay you the $250 later. Before he pays you, you lose 3k. He terminates your deal and says he doesn't owe you anything anymore.

As has been stated numerous times, there is nothing wrong with the argument technically, "ACKSHUALLY" when you put it like you do. Without a contract though (the only way you would ever be able to recoup any money under such bs circumstances) as well as written proof that Tom agreed to settle at the 500k+ mark, he has 0 real world claim to any money. Where is this proof? Shouldnt be hard to produce if it exists. Anyone who pulls this kind of bs in a non contractual staking deal amongst friends is a massive douchebag.

The kind of warped reality you live in to expect to get 250k under these circumstances is baffling.

Moral of the story kids. Don’t settle without actually settleing.

It seems that Tom and Peter had multiple dealings wih each other. Some of them may include:
1. Tom staking Peter and Peter cashing when he is in profit.
2. Tom staking Peter and ending up in makeup for 1.6 million.
3. Tom staking Peter and Ike fronting the money for those buy ins (Could be while 1. or/and 2. or a seperate occasion).
4. Tom bought pieces of Peter in tournaments. (And didn't paid)

Don't know what happened in what order.
But it looks like Tom was purposely not clear and trying to mix everything to confuse people in these interviews. I wonder why he would do that?

Is it standard practises for horses to pay a % of their makeup at the end of their staking arrangement? If not then Tom has no argument for not paying for situation 4.

Confirmed by who? And how? I don't emember it that way

I've read some of Jetten's tweet and he said that the 250k Tom owed wasn't from cashout.

No it's not. Just settle for the make up the way you're supposed to. Owing 1.6 million is not the same as being 1.6 million in makeup.

Imagine how much money Tom would be able to pay back if he stopped flying private and eating thousand dollar dinners

Imagine if you were not a scumbag who blew 1.5 mega of your mates whaling it up and then tried to scam 250k back publicly so you could pay your mortgage.

I didn't say it was.
I never said Jetten owes Dwan any money.

I feel like I might be able to understand this Dwan-Jetten thing if we could just get a few more analogies.

I think dwan owes the buy ins bc that was the deal they had. Dwan would snap pay provided receipts which is what he said.

It also wouldn’t make sense for jetten to put up half the buy ins and have it go towards make up. That’s just not a thing. If it was part of makeup then dwan would have put up the entire amount which was not the case.

The make up then should be decided by all parties involved.

Most likely there’s no point to continue investing in jetten so the make up is worth $0. The fact jetten is out of poker means the make up could actually be negative in value bc if he tries to play there’s a good chance he would lose more especially not being able to get any profit. He’d basically be a slave to the deal.

Let this be a lesson to all to not invest in your friends and if you do invest in friends or anyone for that matter make sure you make the terms as clear cut as possible.

With all that said if I were jetten and I lost all this money I’d probably be trying to get dwan to just absolve the number on his side and call it a wash, the only problem is the other backer basically gets screwed if that happens.

+1

It's a traffic ... jam, when you're already late.

A no ... smoooooooking sign on your cigarette break.

gotta be a good chance Jetten is running low on cash, otherwise why start pressing the issue so hard after 4 years?


Feel like most really well-off people would be glad to let this go and call it a wash after losing 1.6M of toms money

The idea is that basically it is easier and better for the business to ban/limit everybody who wins then to have a proper risk department, to actually have good traders and all that. Believe it or not to run a good sportsbook can be incredibly costly.

I have been working in gambling for quit a while now and excluded many advantage players from campaigns i came up with. I remember spending a lot of time and effort on making my campaigns unbeatable just for my boss to tell me mate i dont give a **** if this is exploitable our benchmark is not exploitability but other operators. To be able to compete with what they offer we need to have beatable promos and lines. We just exclude everybody who abuses them.

Some people get caught in the cross fire but nobody really cares. It is a bit weird though as i know of huge punters that have been limited or banned for going on a run in some casinos while when i look at their betting patterns they obviously are a fish on a heater.

Thats obviously nonsense. If a book cant limit or exclude winning players the business becomes inherently unsustainable. A single guy could bring down all books.
Odds would have to become super secure and unbeatable. I dont think anybody wants that.

That is also absolute nonsense. You have no idea how much a good well organised betting cartel can do in damages in a very short amount of time.

Books can be and have been broken.

Now if a casino/ book can not limit or ban players anymore it would take weeks for all and every book to be bankrupt or closed.

You honestly believe that casinos/bookmakers etc should be allowed to only target losing players? With the main way of doing this is to trick and convince them that they can win?
Seems a bit, i dunno, wrong?

That's a little too ironic, don't ya think?