while im familiar with this type of scam, these online versions always have a second level because of the anonymity. like in the girah/dog/jungle scam, getting to the very bottom of it is almost impossible.

in this scam i would suspect that all involved except the rich mark are on a permanent vacation because all of this will get back to the rich mark BUT for all we know there is no rich mark! the depth of scumminess amongst these former online superstars never ceases to boggle the mind.

Dont give in Alec, every **** is a scumbag, you hold your ground

RBK, please stop posting. You are not bringing anything but drama and bull**** in this thread. Thanks

You are the one trolling me right now. Why you trolling me, bro?

riverboatking, you got the banter of a 14 year old. I don't even know why ebarnet is making an effort talking to you.

Then again my expectations are probably way off, since someone called out traheho for chatting ridiculous crap at the tables way back, and to his defense he said "Well don't blame me, I was only... 19!"

Seems to me like ebarnet makes good points and then gets trolled really really hard which brings tons more attention to what he says. Which is funny because I think ZJ and RBK are trying to defend traheho

Alec 's answer will most likely be: That's what Perky wanted, he is known to do weird **** all the time and I didn't want to irritate him while he is paying me $150K.

Not saying it is or isn't what happened

please show me where/when i defended traheho?

how is everyone's reading comprehension so bad?

insidemanpoker asked me for my opinion on a hypothetical situation and i gave it, at which point ebarnet and basaint completely failed to comprehend what i was saying and started making non-sequitor rebuttals.
i pointed out their stupidity and then got a bunch of PM's telling me how i had acne and was a loser from the same person who told me i should stop making personal attacks against people.

this thread as jalex so eloquently stated is aids, and i feel like i'm in some bizzaro world where your saying i'm defending traheho and ebarnet is making good points.

but i will say the ****ing lynch mob witch hunting mentality on display in this thread is ridic and sadly totally std for 2p2 lately.

the only fkcing person in this thread who apparently has any knowledge whatsoever about what happened is viffer and yet we have 5 ****ing pages filled with trolls preaching from their soap box about all the terrible things alec did when the only ****ing thing any of you actually have proof of is chip dumping.

yet none of you can show even the smallest amount of restraint and actually wait to find out what happened before building the gallows.

why is perky called NYU Dave as stated in this thread, if his name is Mark?

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...umber=10555768

ya wondered the same thing

RBK is making good points, but is probably not doing himself favours by making tons of posts in this thread arguing with the trolls (kinda agree with Tobias).

He should of just posted <10 posts and left it, obv ebarnet seems like an idiot.

OP you sound like a major scumbag, you get rich off a drug addict and have the nerve to get a TYPERKY license plate. Then you come in here to preach to us how ethical you are?

this thread is nasty and it reminds me how nasty poker players are, makes me sick to my stomach what kind of garbage I associate myself with when I think about all these poker player scum that are just like this alec punk.

If someone owed me money and said they couldn't transfer it to me but had to chipdump, the first two things that would go through my mind were: (1) he was going to lose a backer's money to me; or (2) he was going to try to scam me and win the money. Even if I were willing to engage in chipdumping to settle a debt (which even if you have no problem breaking the rules per se is a risky thing to do because it puts your account on that site at risk), I would have to be given an incredibly convincing explanation as to why the debtor couldn't get me the money via other means.

As far as I can tell, no explanation has been given as to why Perky couldn't pay Alec via other means. This was allegedly a guy with a ton of money in the real world. If he couldn't transfer the money on a poker site (and no one with first hand knowledge has stated this was the case) why couldn't he just wire the money to a bank account, pay in cash, or have a friend or friends pay in cash, etc.?

The bet-sizing tell and the admission that it was used seems really damning that both parties knew what was going on. As many have already pointed out, if there was no third party involved (and presumably watching the proceedings), the two players could have just been on the phone/AIM with each other, and would have no need for a predetermined signaling plan.

As for the theoretical issue of whether Alec should be on the hook even if he didn't know it was the backer's money, the method of payment makes a difference both legally and in terms of what's right. The need for Perky to give him the money via chipdumping should have set off alarm bells and triggered a duty of inquiry on his part. There's a legal doctrine called willful blindness which basically states if knowledge of a fact is required for culpability and you didn't have actual knowledge of it but had knowledge of facts that should have strongly aroused your suspicions then you will be deemed to have knowledge of that fact, such as if you are given $10K to take a carry-on bag on an airplane but don't look inside. And obtaining money via improper means certainly weakens your claim of right to it.

loool, nick rivers is on a whole nother level of troll. i just want you to know that i appreciate u nick.

But if perky has a way to receive 150k to his account, should he not then also have the ability for someone else to send 150k to alec's account?

I responded to Todd's post a lil while ago, but then deleted it because I realized I didn't answer his assertion at all. Yeah, it is unlikely that chipdumping was the ONLY way to transfer the money. Looks fishy.

This thread is 97% noise. Most would be cleared up if Alec simply answered:

1) Why did Perky have to pay you back via bet-sizing chipdump rather than (a) paying you offline, (b) transferring the $, (c) dumping without the bet-sizing tell?
2) Did you know (or have a reasonable belief) that Perky was dumping a backer's money to you?

If nothing shady was going on, coming back to answer these easy Q's really shouldn't be burdensome. Seems to me that the only reason he won't is b/c he seems to know that Viffer has more info than he's letting slip.

I don't know any of the principals involved in this instance, but my long and storied career on 2+2 has made one thing clear: 95%+ of people who play the "ugh, 2+2 is such a lynch-mob clusterF, I'm leaving and never coming back" card are guilty of what they're being accused of, or worse.

I think everything else is pretty cut and dry (or unknown) I'm still having a hard time believing that ignorance means he's not on the hook for the money. Let's assume the following:

- Alec had no knowledge of any scam
- Alec had no reason to believe the chip dump was sketchy
- The game they played was not while Perky was backed

I'm arguing that he would owe this money to the backer and perky would additionally obviously owe this to Alec. It seems a ton of people disagree.

First off it's important to separate the actual game played in which the 150k debt was built from the repayment of the debt. The initial game was played on credit and no actual money (other than the 50nl money they won/lost I think he said they played 50nl and agreed to just pay multiple of it so it was high?) changed hands. They played the game, Alec won 150k worth of chips from Perky, then now there is only a debt. If Perky does not pay, Alec does not have this money. So now that they've played and Perky owes Alec 150k it's no different from any other debt.

Perky steals 150k from his backer and pays this debt to Alec. Again the details should be pretty irrelevant (if we assume Alec is ignorant and didn't have reason to be suspicious). Are people really arguing that money stolen and used to pay a debt that is traceable should not be returned to the owner? If I owe you money, rob a bank, and use that money to pay you, are you arguing that you should get to keep it and now I just owe the bank money rather than the other way around?

There was absolutely no freeroll in this case (assuming no collusion between Perky and backer which is obviously super unlikely since it doesn't come out until 5 years later and it's not even the backer who brings it out) because the alternative to receiving stolen funds was receiving no funds at all so paying the backer back and transferring the debt back only restores the situation to how it was before. Now the argument can be made that Alec thought he had an extra 150k and thus spent money he wouldn't have if he knew he wouldn't but that's not an issue because he said he would pay 150k just to make it go away. The additional issue is also tracing the money. For example if he had cashed the 150k out, spent a bunch, made money from other sources, and then pay Alec back it would be a lot different, but again that's not the case. The money is clearly traceable and I think it's pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt that the money used to pay Alec the 150k was the exact same money Perky scammed his backer out of.

So basically even though my "assumptions" are most definitely off and I don't actually assume they are true, I'm just showing he should at the very least send the 150k back only considering information that is 100% verified by both parties and not disputed. Obviously whether the other things happened matter in a lot of other areas but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't for whether he owes the 150k to the backer.

There is no way to reconcile this belief with any kind of moral code and at the same time be a professional poker player. There is no way around it. It already has happened and it will continue to happen. It's the nature of the game.

If you really believe this, you are either a hypocrite for not verifying all funds that your opponents sit at the table with are legitimate every time you sit down, or you aren't a poker player.

Why do we let people who aren't even associated with this community run rampant in these threads about crap that doesn't even concern them?

Pretty good point.

No you're mixing things up. If someone shows you or buys chips with stolen money and then loses it to you at the poker table you don't owe any of it back. If you play on credit then he steals to pay back the debt he had from the poker game it is completely different and whether or not the debt originated from a poker game should be completely irrelevant. Like just use the bank robbery example. If I steal money from a bank then go blow it in a casino whether it's poker or any other game the casino/winning players never owe the bank anything. If however you offer me a loan (even if it is a loan so I can use that money to play you at poker and then I lose) then I rob a bank to pay you back you 100% owe that money back to the bank. I think if before the match was played perky showed Alec the account balance being 150k+ (being the staked money that's not his) it's a lot closer though, although nothing here indicates that was the case.

No, he actually said that anytime you acquire winnings at a poker table that were procured by illegal means that you are morally obligated to return them.

--I really don't wanna go down this path though, the thread has had enough of this.

eh I honestly think this is one of the only parts of the thread we can actually concretely discuss until Alec/Perky/someone who actually knows something clarifies some stuff. We all know that if Alec knew it was stolen money he has to send back and all that but it's a pretty important part of it if Alec owes the money no matter whether he was aware or not.

So ignoring what he said, do you disagree with my post? If Alec wasn't shown the FTP balance and the poker games were completely removed from the chip dump to repay the debt, do you still think he shouldn't owe the backer that money and his 150k replaced with 150k of Perky debt?

I don't see how should owe or shouldn't owe actually comes into play. If he knew the funds were stolen in the first place he's not ever going to repay them as he clearly didn't have a problem with taking them in the first place.

Do I think that's morally questionable? Of course. But at the same time, I still think that anybody who was trusting a person like perky with such large amounts of cash in some kind of staking deal bears just as large a part of the responsibility as Alec does if it's the case that he knew the funds were stolen.

These funds were likely destined to be lost, and if not to Alec, then to somebody else. If we take that point of view, it doesn't really seem that bad if Alec accepted them as payment for a legitimate outstanding debt. -- The question then becomes, maybe it was irresponsible or even immoral to allow someone like perky to play on credit because you might have to expect a situation like this might come up.

I've already admitted hypocrisy on my part; i'd keep the money in Alec's shoes. I think that makes me less hypocritical than the waves of people conning themselves into thinking that it's not wrong because it suits them.

On your second point, I don't think poker players have done a great job of self-examination wrt ethics. There's a new scandal each week. You guys could use some input from outside sources.